Another day

Another day, another bizarre and unconscionable act by the new Administration, and another massive pushback by citizens. Last week, men had women’s back in their massive march. Today, European-descent and Christian Americans had the back of Muslim permanent residents, immigrants, and refugees from seven Arab nations.
Pass it forward. Don’t just turn out when your own rights are threatened. When a new Executive Order threatens ANY group, come out, yell, bring your American flag, wave signs, call Congress, give to the ACLU, post to social media, and show that you support ALL the rights of ALL your fellow Americans. Even the ones you disagree with.

43

Authors gravatar

My understanding is that this ban is temporary, 120 days. That’s less time than the 6 month moratorium Obama-Clinton penned back in 2011.

Authors gravatar

Jeff Meyer

You very much don’t comprehend the impact and magnitude of this order signed by Trump – and authored by Bannon.
“Extreme Vetting” was always a dog whistle to bigoted Trump acolytes. Evil to the core – especially since the existing US vetting is elaborate.

Authors gravatar

The magnitude is 90 days (half the Obama-Clinton moratorium) from those countries, 120 days for refugees. That’s 3-4 months.

Authors gravatar

Jeff Meyer

Robert Somaduroff your inability to comprehend the overwhelming difference causes me to pause, then ask someone else describe the orders of magnitude of difference there is between establishing the (highly effective) existing vetting program and what Trump/ Bannon did yesterday. Others will need to spoon feed it to you. I refuse

Authors gravatar

Jeff Meyer

Robert Somaduroff Chris Espinosa, who is this guy? You don’t suffer ignorance lightly.

Authors gravatar

Jorg Brown

I don’t recall any time when Obama barred holders of green cards from re-entering this country.

Authors gravatar

Elizabeth Maud Montgomery the controvery stemmed from it’s preventing people, who had previously been able to obtain ID and licenses, from now doing so and thus work (drive to work).

Authors gravatar

Elizabeth Maud Montgomery Here, from the article; “As of May 11, 2005, several portions of the Real ID Act have imposed higher burdens and stricter standards of proof for individuals applying for asylum and other related forms of relief. For the first time, immigration judges can require an applicant to produce corroborating evidence (8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(B)”

Authors gravatar

Chris Espinosa

That is the asylum part. And that was proposed, discussed, litigated, argued—not imposed by executive diktat and implemented chaotically the next day. It also did not apply to LEGAL PERMANENT RESIDENTS as yesterday’s action did. But most telling: you’re proving that Trump is either clueless or lying (or both) when he says that there is “no vetting, none” for refugees. It’s actually very stringent, and has always been, and no, repeat, NO acts of violence have ever been committed in the US by a refugee who has gone through the existing process.

But I’ve seen your other posts and I doubt that you’ll be swayed by facts, or even consider the peril that we are in by electing somebody who has stated, clearly and repeatedly, that he wants to dismantle the US Government and existing political structure and rebuild it in the image of his casinos, modeling agencies, and reality TV show.

Authors gravatar

Robert Somaduroff Something is wrong with your head, I think, if you can’t see the difference between what you’re talking about and yesterday’s action. Yes, I remember Real ID quite well. It didn’t suddenly shut green-card holders out of the country. It didn’t switch on overnight, by fiat. You seem to have a real problem with gauging the relative severity of problems to do with rights and freedom of movement.

Authors gravatar

Deborah Bress

This entire situation is an embarrassment! IF, and it is a huge IF, this bat-shit crazy administration is really trying to protect Americans from terrorists, then why didn’t this list of “dangerous” people that need to be better vetted include people from the countries that actually attacked the US on 9/11? Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Lebanon, Pakistan and other countries are KNOWN to be hotbeds for ISIS and terrorism … IF this is a sincere effort, then why are these countries not included???

This is not the America my ancestors immigrated to … They were welcomed especially if they were leaving persecution. Lady Liberty has her head in hands and is crying … Sad, very sad!

Authors gravatar

Chris Espinosa well, it’s a safe statement to say that no acts of violence have been committed by a refugee who has gone through the existing process, since every time an act of violence occurs..such as the San Bernadino shooting, we tweak the process, so now it’s a “new” process.

Here’s a list we can debate on a case-by-case basis.

http://www.dailywire.com/…/complete-list-radical…

Btw, I haven’t forgotten that the Somaduroff family, when they arrived in 1907, had been rejected from Ellis island (there had been a measles outbreak on the ship that killed, among others, one of us) the ship was redirected to Texas and quarantined. It took more than 120 days for us to get here, I don’t think it’s asking too much for folks nowadays to wait the same.

Authors gravatar

Nevin Liber

San Bernadino, where the non-American attacker was from Pakistan? (Of course, we can’t vet anyone in America who wants a gun, because 14 dead people at San Bernadino is apparently what Makes America Great, but I digress.) Pakistan isn’t on DJT’s list of bad countries. Robert, since you aren’t demanding the DJT put Pakistan on that list, the only possible conclusion is that you, like DJT, believe that vetting people from Pakistan is now 100% safe. Why can’t we apply how we vet people from Pakistan to people from other countries?

Authors gravatar

Matt Spergel

Iran though? Has there ever been a terrorist attack from an Iranian here? I don’t think so. It’s just stupid.

And it’s not like the US Government didn’t overthrow their democratic government back in the 50s and now crazies are in power there. #mosaddegh

Authors gravatar

William Volk

So the Saudi exclusion? Just a coincidence? Not like we’ve ever been attacked by Saudi terrorists right? https://www.google.com/…/trump-muslim-ban-excludes…

Authors gravatar

Joshua M Cuono

Wasn’t Bin Laden from Saudi Arabia?

I seem to recall that’s where he was born, and that there was a schism ‘twixt him and the Princes which gave rise to his hatred of the West.

Authors gravatar

Joshua M Cuono

William Volk Also, if memory serves, wasn’t the Saudi request of the US to put Iraq down purely business motivated? Since those oil fields were pretty huge sources of income… and not just for those in the region.

Authors gravatar

William Volk

Joshua M Cuono the Saudis regretted that because it put the Shia in charge of Iraq. That’s why Prince Bandar gave ISIS (composed of Sunni from Saddam’s gift) their “seed capital.”

Authors gravatar

Joshua M Cuono

William Volk It’s like the Middle Eastern version of Catholics VS. Protestants.

Sheesh, religion really does bring out the angels and demons in us, doesn’t it?

Authors gravatar

Steve Sisak

Robert Somaduroff Just a reminder that all of the 9/11 hijackers were from exempted countries and I don’t believe the US has been attacked by anyone from banned countries.

This is primarily about creating/exploiting fear.

“The breakdown was 15 Saudis, one Egyptian, one Lebanese and two from the Union of Arab Emirates (UAE).”

http://www.pensitoreview.com/…/bush-admits-majority-of…/

EDIT: added photo with numbers

Authors gravatar

Steve Sisak Looks like the ban from those 7 countries is working, are you suggesting we expand the list of countries to include the ones who have contributed, by your table, to thousands of American deaths?

Authors gravatar

Reed Mangino nice, an incorrect article from the UK’s version of The National Enquirer.

Trump’s ban applies to 7 nations, not a religion. Those 7 nations are the ones Obama names as hostile back in 2015.

Authors gravatar

Steve Sisak

Robert Somaduroff ROTFL — no that’s creative logic — so what I’m hearing you say is that because there have been no attacks by citizens of those countries since 1975, the ban that was imposed 2 days ago is a success?

If there’s going to be any ban at all, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and UAE should head the list (unfortunately DJT has business interests in those countries — as well as all the others that are exempt, but have attacked us). The Saudis are the largest sponsors of terrorism, BTW.

But that goes back to the dodge the current administration is using: that the Obama administration chose these countries for added scrutiny.

They did — and tightened screening procedures long ago (which does demonstrate the successfulness of the OBAMA administration’s security policies as you say), then used the same 24-36month screening procedures for the Syrian refugees currently being being placed.

This is classic for DJT — claim a nonexistent problem. then take credit for someone else’s work in fixing it (just like Mexican immigration, which peaked in 2006, hit zero in 2009 and has been negative ever since).

BTW, this interview with Stephen Miller this morning is really creepy — needs to be watched just for the body language.

…and I love the quote at 2:21 which should ban most US Conservative Christians. (I can’t keep track of the multiple standards at this point — I’m on propaganda overload)

http://www.cbsnews.com/…/trump-adviser-calls-travel…/

Authors gravatar

Steve Sisak others have mentioned the Saudis and UAE also. I think that’s very progressive of you to suggest that we extend the ban to those countries as well. Perhaps it will meet with the same success, given as you say, there have been no attacks since 1975.

Btw, there is not a ban at all. This is a temporary halt to processing for 90-120 days while a new system is put into place. Exactly like the temporary 180 day halt Obama put on refugees a few years back.

Authors gravatar

Steve Sisak

BTW, Robert appears to be following the Karl Rove Political Debate Playbook — I’ll post a link to the document here so others can follow along:
https://www.reddit.com/…/the_reactionary_political…/

Authors gravatar

Steve Sisak

Robert Somaduroff You’re good at twisting words.

You will note that I said “IF there is any ban..” and was using that as an example of the hypocrisy of the administration’s position’s by using proper logic to reduce it into multiple incompatible options.

Obama, halted and fixed the problem. Those fixes are still in place and working nicely, hence no measurable problems — that fact just doesn’t fit with the “alternative facts” that DJT used as the basis of his campaign, so now he needs to go out and create a problem to prove his was “right”, while others pay the price for it.

Nice try though.

EDIT: Here’s a link to the official vetting procedures:
https://www.state.gov/…/rele…/factsheets/2017/266447.htm

Authors gravatar

Steve Sisak

Reed Mangino — thanks for posting the Mirror link, it’s a good summary and, even if is “the UK’s version of The National Enquirer”, that goes to how the average “Enquirer Reader” in the UK sees us.

To save everyone the advertising and clickbait, here’s the actual bullet list (which closely matches the detailed article Martin Haeberli just posted):

What Donald Trump is doing (2017)
* Ban entry to the US for people born in seven majority Muslim countries – Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen – including holders of legal green cards and visas – for 90 days
* Suspending the Syrian refugee plan indefinitely
* Suspending entire refugee plan for 120 days
* Bans entry to the US for dual-nationality passport holders – meaning citizens of the above countries who also hold, for example, a British passport, are also banned for 90 days.
* Prioritise Christian refugees over Muslims
* Capped refugee total to 50,000
* Did it out of the blue – Trump came up with his Muslim ban following the Orlando nightclub shooting, an attack committed not by refugees or migrants, but by a US citizen who was born in New York.
* Of all the fatal terror attacks carried out on US soil since 9/11, exactly zero have been committed by immigrants from the seven majority Muslim countries targeted by the ban

What Barack Obama did (2011)
* Paused approvals of refugee applications from Iraq for a period of six months after two Iraqi al-Qaeda terrorists were discovered living as refugees in Kentucky.

What he didn’t do
* Base it on religion — Obama’s order – which was done with very little fanfare – selected Iraqi nationals based on geography and a specific event, not religion.
* Do it out of the blue — It was done in response to a specific event, and to allow FBI agents enough to gather fingerprints from captured roadside bombs, which they used to toughen their refugee screening process

What Jimmy Carter did (1979)
* Placed sanctions on Iran after they held 52 American diplomats hostage for 444 days
* The sanctions included a block on all future visas issued to Iranian citizens

What he didn’t do
* Base it on religion — The block was targeted at Iranian nationals, not Muslims
* Do it out of the blue — Carter’s sanctions were the culmination of a long-running escalation of tensions between the US and Iran.

P.S. Robert, the fallacy you’re attempting to use is https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic so I’ll give you a chance to fix the errors in your argument and try again.

The errors I found in the Mirror list, based on the WaPo article and news this morning are:

1) The Obama administration never halted actually immigration — as a result of finding two “fake refugees” in the country, they re-vetted everyone in the country and increased the screening, which backed up the system for 6 months.

2) This morning, the Trump administration backed off the green card restriction, but it’s not clear that memo made it to the TSA in airports.

Noter than those, it looks correct to me.

BTW, for anyone wth friends/relatives trying to return, the recommendation is to try to fly into Boston/Logan — Massachusetts has the strongest injunction and, unlike other areas, the local customs agents are respecting it.

Leave a Reply