Supreme Court permits full enforcement of Trump travel ban

[bcking 3,157]

We should all be super excited for randomly banning people from 5 countries, while not actually making our country any safer.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/trump-immigration-ban-terrorism/514361/

 

But of course this has everything to do with safety...and facts...so many facts to back up the ban....huge facts...we just seem to have misplaced them.

 

I could maybe have a discussion on the merits of temporarily halting immigration from specific countries in the interest of national security. But those countries would have to actually be sources of immigrant terrorists in the USA. None of those on this "travel ban" list have been.

Meanwhile, there are several other countries that have. So the fact that those other countries aren't the target screams ulterior motives or conflicting priorities (The countries that actually do contribute to terrorists are more friendly with us and we don't want to offend, perhaps?).

[TBoneTX 45,292]

Several bickering posts have been removed.  Please return to the topic.

[Boiler 45,519]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

We should all be super excited for randomly banning people from 5 countries, while not actually making our country any safer.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/trump-immigration-ban-terrorism/514361/

 

But of course this has everything to do with safety...and facts...so many facts to back up the ban....huge facts...we just seem to have misplaced them.

 

I could maybe have a discussion on the merits of temporarily halting immigration from specific countries in the interest of national security. But those countries would have to actually be sources of immigrant terrorists in the USA. None of those on this "travel ban" list have been.

Meanwhile, there are several other countries that have. So the fact that those other countries aren't the target screams ulterior motives or conflicting priorities (The countries that actually do contribute to terrorists are more friendly with us and we don't want to offend, perhaps?).

Agree there are a lot more than 5.

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Boiler said:

Agree there are a lot more than 5.

There are certainly countries you could advocate for looking at. None of these countries would be on my Top 5 list. These countries have not contributed towards a single death on US soil. The fact that it is these countries and NOT the countries actually responsible not only make the whole thing completely ineffective, but it also heavily suggests that there is a reason for not targeting those other countries.

 

My guess (Just a guess) is that the countries that are actually big players in terms of terrorists coming to the USA are stronger political allies (Saudi Arabia, for example). Putting a ban on them would be much more difficult and would be met with international resistance and would hurt us economically. At the same time though, Trump is obsessed with "winning", even if the "win" is rather meaningless. So he picks 7 weak countries that he can ban to show that he is successful at making us "safer" even though those countries aren't the source of risk in America.

[Dashinka 24,502]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

There are certainly countries you could advocate for looking at. None of these countries would be on my Top 5 list. These countries have not contributed towards a single death on US soil. The fact that it is these countries and NOT the countries actually responsible not only make the whole thing completely ineffective, but it also heavily suggests that there is a reason for not targeting those other countries.

 

My guess (Just a guess) is that the countries that are actually big players in terms of terrorists coming to the USA are stronger political allies (Saudi Arabia, for example). Putting a ban on them would be much more difficult and would be met with international resistance and would hurt us economically. At the same time though, Trump is obsessed with "winning", even if the "win" is rather meaningless. So he picks 7 weak countries that he can ban to show that he is successful at making us "safer" even though those countries aren't the source of risk in America.

I thought it had more to do with being able to insure the validity of documentation from these countries?  I also thought it was the last administration that did the initial investigation?

[Boiler 45,519]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

There are certainly countries you could advocate for looking at. None of these countries would be on my Top 5 list. These countries have not contributed towards a single death on US soil. The fact that it is these countries and NOT the countries actually responsible not only make the whole thing completely ineffective, but it also heavily suggests that there is a reason for not targeting those other countries.

 

My guess (Just a guess) is that the countries that are actually big players in terms of terrorists coming to the USA are stronger political allies (Saudi Arabia, for example). Putting a ban on them would be much more difficult and would be met with international resistance and would hurt us economically. At the same time though, Trump is obsessed with "winning", even if the "win" is rather meaningless. So he picks 7 weak countries that he can ban to show that he is successful at making us "safer" even though those countries aren't the source of risk in America.

[bcking 3,157]

15 minutes ago, Boiler said:

I'd prefer it to be a step in the right direction.

 

This whole "travel ban" deal seems like a sidestep at best. It won't make us safer, and it won't change the fact that we aren't going to ban people from countries that we trade with and make money from.

[bcking 3,157]

21 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I thought it had more to do with being able to insure the validity of documentation from these countries?  I also thought it was the last administration that did the initial investigation?

The executive order is entitled

 

"Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States"

 

Rather grandiose language for this, if you ask me. There has been only one foreign terrorist entry from all 7 countries, and that resulted in injuries, no deaths.

 

The Obama administration came up with the list of countries, but never so far as to suggest to ban everyone from those countries. Those countries were subject to increased vetting. During that time, of course, those countries continued to be low on teh list of countries that actually send terrorists into the USA. 

 

Trump clearly changed the scope and escalated it further, without any evidence that it was needed. Those countries have continued to have a extremely low impact on our "safety". The ban hardly makes us any safer (if at all). It won't stop terrorists from coming in if they wanted to. From historical evidence the terrorists won't even need to jump through any additional hoops since they don't seem to ever originate from those countries in the first place.

Edited December 5, 2017 by bcking

[Dashinka 24,502]

10 minutes ago, bcking said:

The executive order is entitled

 

"Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States"

 

Rather grandiose language for this, if you ask me. There has been only one foreign terrorist entry from all 7 countries, and that resulted in injuries, no deaths.

 

The Obama administration came up with the list of countries, but never so far as to suggest to ban everyone from those countries. Those countries were subject to increased vetting. During that time, of course, those countries continued to be low on teh list of countries that actually send terrorists into the USA. 

 

Trump clearly changed the scope and escalated it further, without any evidence that it was needed. Those countries have continued to have a extremely low impact on our "safety". The ban hardly makes us any safer (if at all). It won't stop terrorists from coming in if they wanted to. From historical evidence the terrorists won't even need to jump through any additional hoops since they don't seem to ever originate from those countries in the first place.

But wasn’t that the point of the whole EO, to pause immigration from these countries until the increased vetting could be implemented? I agree, there are probably more countries that should be on the list, but I imagine the vetting has also been improved.

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

But wasn’t that the point of the whole EO, to pause immigration from these countries until the increased vetting could be implemented? I agree, there are probably more countries that should be on the list, but I imagine the vetting has also been improved.

What evidence existed that they weren't vetted well enough before?

 

Were terrorists "falling through the cracks"?

[Dunngary 37]

52 minutes ago, bcking said:

What evidence existed that they weren't vetted well enough before?

 

Were terrorists "falling through the cracks"?

The EO was a measure to appease his base. It improves nothing and as many experts pointed out it doesn't improve security either. 

[jayjayj 571]

9 hours ago, bcking said:

What evidence existed that they weren't vetted well enough before?

 

Were terrorists "falling through the cracks"?

We don't know yet.

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, jayjayj said:

We don't know yet.

That argument could apply to literally anything, or keeping to the scope of this topic - literally any country.

 

Perhaps Canada will be responsible for the migration of hundreds of deadly terrorists. They haven't so far, but we don't know yet what will happen in the future. Maybe they already have but the terrorists are just biding their time?

 

Should we can Canada? Perhaps our vetting isn't good enough. We just don't know yet.

[jayjayj 571]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

That argument could apply to literally anything, or keeping to the scope of this topic - literally any country.

 

Perhaps Canada will be responsible for the migration of hundreds of deadly terrorists. They haven't so far, but we don't know yet what will happen in the future. Maybe they already have but the terrorists are just biding their time?

 

Should we can Canada? Perhaps our vetting isn't good enough. We just don't know yet.

Except Canada isn't a failed state.

[Boiler 45,519]

3 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

Except Canada isn't a failed state.