this was released yesterday… the state department just announced in accordance
to Herr Trumpf signed executive order, another executive order and still no outrage
about his overreach from the right… party over country right? anyway, the state department
just announced that they have revoked ALL valid nonimmigrant and immigrant visa’s of
the nations of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen… the only exceptions to this
is Diplomatic, foreign military and nato personal… everyone else is now on a case to case
basis… ummm and the march goes on… just how many attacks from ISIS terrorists
have come from any of these countries… the correct answer is none…so we
don’t have one attack coming from any of these countries and yet, it is still not
a Muslim ban? I wonder how that is?
It’s not a Muslim ban because “Being a muslim nation” is obviously not the criteria of the nations that visa’s are banned from: ability to vet citizens and ISIS presence are the criteria. Again, that’s why people from Indonesia, Oman, Kazakhstan and Niger are still allowed in.
In other words, it’s not a Muslim ban for the exact same reason you failed to address the other three times you asked.
Instead of the political, look at the practical. People make travel plans, they buy tickets, rent cars, book hotels. Suddenly they are screwed. How much money are they going to lose? Some airlines have said that they would refund their tickets … so the airlines are underbooked and losing money.
Trump could have said that in 6 months there would be a ban. But that would require thinking ahead and having some consideration for people.
Re-evaluating the vetting process is part of the 90-day ban, though. That’s what’s behind the whole ‘extreme vetting’ thing; the idea that it’s too easy for people to get here as it stands. “They were already vetted, though” doesn’t mean much from the perspective that the current vetting system is crap.
And it’s not just Trump saying that, of course; nypost.com/2015/12/05/gopers-vis … t-into-us/ The idea that visas were far too easy to get has been a GOP concern since before Trump was the frontrunner.
So you don’t care about that. When do you start caring?
If the US doesn’t respect the agreements in place, when then what does it respect? Can anything be revoked on the order of the president? Can the rights of American citizens also be revoked?
Can American citizens of undesirable descent be sent to internment camps? Like in WW2 for example. Hey, why not?
the former prime minister of Norway was detained at Dulles last weekend
because on his passport was listed a trip to Iran… he was traveling on a
diplomatic passport and he was still detained for hours…
I’m explaining to you the perspective of Trump and his supporters, you’re ignoring it. The reason why “They already had legal visas!” is not the beginning and end of the argument is because the GOP doesn’t trust the way people are vetted for visas in high-risk countries. Sure, it sucks that somebody who was told they could come here has to wait for 90 days, and may possibly have that approval revoked, but you just have to weigh those two things: either Trump had to let people continue to come into this country for six months (or whatever, that was your suggestion) with a visa system he thought was unsafe, OR he had to turn away some people vetted under the old system. Both options have upsides and down sides, that’s all.
All spending has to be approved by Congress, and the President can’t violate the Constitution. Those are pretty much the two big holds on presidential power. Executive orders can simulate laws in a lot of ways excepting those two things. When it comes to immigration, Obama has been passing executive orders dictating who can come here and from where (both to increase immigration from places like Syria, and to decrease it from places like Iraq and Cuba) throughout his presidency.
I can think of many reasons why not; reasons that don’t entail letting strangers from the Sudan come here unchecked. The two things don’t seem connected to me.
Your first sentence says that I’m ignoring something which I was not ignoring. Why should I bother responding to the rest?
You basically trivialize my concerns and you claim that only you understand the issues … yeah, not in those exact words but that’s the essence of your posts.
I don’t care what Obama did … he is history … I’m talking about the current president and his actions.
You don’t think that this is a potential thin-edge-of-the-wedge. I think that is short-sighted.
been reading up on this whole revoking visa’s thing and
it has been noticed, not by me, but noticed that by revoking
visa’s, you have just destroyed the entire tourism trade coming into
the U.S… because the executive order says “ALL persons with a visa”
thus everyone single person entering the U.S must undergo extreme
vetting to enter the U.S… this is in the language of the executive order,
so for example, Disney almost immediately had quite a few cancellations
after this order came down, so now Disney is anti-trumpf because he caused
them quite a bit of money… this order basically destroys the tourism industry
because now people can’t be sure if they can or cannot get into the country or leave
the country… so be on the lookout for the tourism industry which is billions upon
billions of dollars, to be way down this year… thus another little brick in the wall…
You shouldn’t. You should reply to the first sentence only because you can easily dismiss it and completely ignore the substance, because that’s what people whining constantly about the quality of a discussion board do. In my experience.
You concerns are legitimate. The people we aren’t letting in are going to be pissed off, miss out on things like wedding and jobs and such, and will feel like our country lied to them. Nevertheless, it is that, or continue letting people in from ISIS-plagued countries under a sub-par vetting system for six months. That’s the choice. Both options suck. The GOP won, so they pick the one their constituents favor. If Hillary won, she may have gone another way with it, or maybe she would have done the same damned thing and the ususal suspects wouldn’t have complained.
If you’re going to wail about how horrible and racist some President’s actions are, it would be nice if you acknowledged that the immediately preceding president of the opposite party did the same damned thing and wasn’t called racist. I suppose you don’t like it because it lets some of the air out of the emotional side of your argument, but really: if you’re going to wax all dramatic and compare some policy to the fucking Holocaust, you can expect people to look and see if the policy is really that out of the ordinary after all.
What substance? You’re a thug shouting down everybody who has a different opinion.
Emotional?? I don’t give a shit about either of your presidents or the republican party or the democratic party. I don’t give a shit about your country.
I’m trying to determine whether the policies of your president make sense or not… whether those policies are dumb or smart.
