Immigration Ban

[zoogs]

I'm glad people are coming out in full support of these actions. It helps to be clear about where we stand, because then we can have a conversation about why.

 

[Landlord]

I am hopeful that the temporary ban will allow the Feds to revamp/fix/address/whatever the vetting processes that happen for those from the 7 countries (and possibly all countries) before they enter our country legally.

Would you care to offer any kind of evidence or support of ANY kind whatsoever that the vetting process needs to be revamped, fixed, addressed, or whatever? 800,000 refugees here since 9/11 - not a one has killed an American citizen, and 3 have been charged with terrorism-related crimes. That's 99.99999% effective. So many people are saying this is a a good idea until we can solve the problem with our vetting - the question is, what problem? There doesn't seem to be one that exists, and though I and others have countless times posted the screening process graphics from the White House, nobody has ever cared to respond.

 

[Danny Bateman]

First off, the number two point that Landlord bolded in his response is bunk. Immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than others, even undocumented ones.

(I'd recommend skipping to the conclusion and implications section of that last paper unless you want to parse through everything)

Which "bad" people are we talking about? Is it the undocumented Mexicans, toiling for poor wages picking our produce or working in our meat processing plants to keep food prices low? Or is it the highly-skilled workers who come in on an H1B with skills a lot of Americans DON'T HAVE and then overstay their visas because they're good at what they do?

It's important to be specific in this discussion.

Obama et al are right when they say we need to be a lot more concerned with homegrown radicalization than some mean people with hate in their heart boarding a plane coming here to hurt us. Trump's policies have done NOTHING to address homegrown radicalization and likely only aggravated the problem thus far.

Re: the shot at his finances, it is my judgment that Trump has done f***-all to legitimately remove himself from his financial conflicts of interest. Lots of non-partisan ethicists and concerned Americans are saying the same thing. I don't know whether he's crafting policy to help America or his own pocket book. But I had to disengage from the Trump spin machine to be able to think about it objectively. Luckily, that happened for me very quickly.

 

[GM_Tood]

First of all, it's not temporary for Syria, the country whose citizens need our help more than anyone.

I do not think it is a "Muslim Ban"...if it was then why not just shut down all countries listed as having majority Muslim population?

Because that would be illegal, so they couched it in distracting rhetoric. Guilliani even admitted as such on Fox News, saying Trump wanted a muslim ban and came to Rudy to ask, "How can we make this legal?" Easy. By finding some other excuse to ban entry from these Middle Eastern countries.

I am hopeful that the temporary ban will allow the Feds to revamp/fix/address/whatever the vetting processes that happen for those from the 7 countries (and possibly all countries) before they enter our country legally.

Would you care to offer any kind of evidence or support of ANY kind whatsoever that the vetting process needs to be revamped, fixed, addressed, or whatever? 800,000 refugees here since 9/11 - not a one has killed an American citizen, and 3 have been charged with terrorism-related crimes. That's 99.99999% effective. So many people are saying this is a a good idea until we can solve the problem with our vetting - the question is, what problem? There doesn't seem to be one that exists, and though I and others have countless times posted the screening process graphics from the White House, nobody has ever cared to respond.

There's a few problems I have with immigration at large:

1. Our path to citizenship sucks and it's way too hard for good people to enter the country legally.

2. Our ability to prevent bad immigration sucks and it's way too easy for bad people to enter the country illegally.

3. People who attempt to solve problem #1 by exacerbating #2 are part of the problem.

4. People who don't want to solve #1 until #2 is solved are part of the problem.

I remember thinking in 2011/2012 that then President Obama could redeem himself in the upcoming election by pushing an issue that was very ripe in my opinion: solving #1 and #2 with a broad immigration reform. He (nor did Romney) talk about immigration.

re: the bolded, what do these have anything to do with Trump's refugee ban? It is easy for bad people to enter our country, period. Forget illegally. They can get here on tourist visas with tremendous ease. They're not trying to pose as refugees or immigrate - that's way more work and way more difficult. Further, Obama actually did quite a bit. I see a lot of conservatives on Facebook referencing his Iraq refugee halt in 2011, which was in response to an actual terrorist threat in the states, and resulted in a revamp of our now extremely thorough and effective vetting procedures.

Evidence or support, do I have to find a Facebook post or reddit image to back my opinion?

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2015/11/the-refugee-vetting-process-will-fail

http://www.npr.org/2015/11/17/456395388/paris-attacks-ignite-debate-over-u-s-refugee-policy

http://immigrationreform.com/2016/09/30/naturalization-errors-expose-vetting-problems/

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-syria-refugees-vetting-gap-20170125-story.html ---Read this one first.

Ask the European countries that have been having issues with immigrants/refugees from some of these 7 countries if you think there aren't issues.

As far as what you bolded, I was stating my opinion on Immigration as a whole.

 

[ZRod]

I think this poorly thought out ban order was the beginning of us seeing Trump weaving his own financial interests into policy. It just so happens they decide to ban immigrants from 7 nations from which 0 deaths on American soil have come, at the same time as NOT implementing bans for countries with other countries where Trump just so HAPPENS to have business? Totally above board, right?

Fake News. Jesus people, do some research.

What part of that is fake?

That this has anything to do with Trump's financial interests. And that these 7 countries were just magically picked out of a hat based on those interests.

Then why were three (possibly four if you want to include Pakistan) countries that produced terrorists who have killed on US soil been left of the list?

Because in order to add additional Countries to those listed as 'Countries of Concern' it would have taken a longer process (Congress)to get this EO done. And if I remember hearing on CNN interview yesterday, that the possibility of adding countries is still a possibility.

But why were those countries not on the list from the beginning? Those are the ones we actually do have a problem with right? If I have gangrene in my left foot, why would I start to fix the problem by cutting off my right leg?

 

[Danny Bateman]

[No message]

 

[GM_Tood]

I'm glad people are coming out in full support of these actions. It helps to be clear about where we stand, because then we can have a conversation about why.

Yeah, we'll see how this conversation/attacking goes.

 

[GM_Tood]

I think this poorly thought out ban order was the beginning of us seeing Trump weaving his own financial interests into policy. It just so happens they decide to ban immigrants from 7 nations from which 0 deaths on American soil have come, at the same time as NOT implementing bans for countries with other countries where Trump just so HAPPENS to have business? Totally above board, right?

Fake News. Jesus people, do some research.

What part of that is fake?

That this has anything to do with Trump's financial interests. And that these 7 countries were just magically picked out of a hat based on those interests.

Then why were three (possibly four if you want to include Pakistan) countries that produced terrorists who have killed on US soil been left of the list?

Because in order to add additional Countries to those listed as 'Countries of Concern' it would have taken a longer process (Congress)to get this EO done. And if I remember hearing on CNN interview yesterday, that the possibility of adding countries is still a possibility.

But why were those countries not on the list from the beginning? Those are the ones we actually do have a problem with right? If I have gangrene in my left foot, why would I start to fix the problem by cutting off my right leg?

I would have to re-read the initial action taken when these countries were added. You make an excellent point as to why no other country was among those deemed 'Countries of Concern'. i will try to find out.

EDIT:

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-restrictions-visa-waiver-program

Not sure why other than they did not meet the criteria per Sec of HS.

Pursuant to the Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security had sixty days to determine whether additional countries or areas of concern should be subject to the travel or dual nationality restrictions under the Act. After careful consideration, and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security has determined that Libya, Somalia, and Yemen be included as countries of concern, specifically for individuals who have traveled to these countries since March 1, 2011. At this time, the restriction on Visa Waiver Program travel will not apply to dual nationals of these three countries. DHS continues to consult with the Department of State and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to develop further criteria to determine whether other countries would be added to this list.

 

[zoogs]

I'm glad people are coming out in full support of these actions. It helps to be clear about where we stand, because then we can have a conversation about why.

Yeah, we'll see how this conversation/attacking goes.

Yes. Let's keep any attacks focused squarely on the positions, not your fellow posters.

Here's mine. I do not see how a support of Trump's actions can possibly be consistent with anything other than an endorsement of pre-1965 American immigration policy. And I cannot see where this comes from except a place where these visa holders and outsiders are not seen as people: from refugees fleeing desperation, to academics working in our labs and hospitals, to veteran translators who risked their lives for our soldiers.

It only makes sense if they are reduced to threats. This is confusing to me, because look at all the terrorist attacks that have happened. It does not take a foreigner. And actions such as those taken by this administration will only encourage radicalization everywhere, including within.

 

[GM_Tood]

Does anyone that knows Law think that the lawsuits being filed would overturn the POTUS' authority to do what he did based on the below?

8 U.S.C. § 1182 (f)

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

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.

 

[Landlord]

So, per your links, assuming they are all factual and not "fake news", here's what we know for sure:

1. The vetting process is extremely rigid, thorough, rigorous and lengthy.

2. In 16 years, and 800,000 refugees, none of have committed acts of terror, and 3 have been charged with planning acts of terror.

3. There was a technological gap that was found, and fixed, and might have let a small number slip through, which are currently being investigated.

4. There might be inconsistency within the fingerprint databases.

5. Some politicians think there's still the potential for danger.

6. A year and a half ago a conservative writer predicted the refugee screening process will fail, eventually.

I still fail to see the problem that results in shutting the whole thing down, even if temporarily. 99.9999% efficiency in a pool of almost 1 million people speaks for itself.

 

[ColoNoCoHusker]

First of all, it's not temporary for Syria, the country whose citizens need our help more than anyone.

I do not think it is a "Muslim Ban"...if it was then why not just shut down all countries listed as having majority Muslim population?

Because that would be illegal, so they couched it in distracting rhetoric. Guilliani even admitted as such on Fox News, saying Trump wanted a muslim ban and came to Rudy to ask, "How can we make this legal?" Easy. By finding some other excuse to ban entry from these Middle Eastern countries.

I am hopeful that the temporary ban will allow the Feds to revamp/fix/address/whatever the vetting processes that happen for those from the 7 countries (and possibly all countries) before they enter our country legally.

Would you care to offer any kind of evidence or support of ANY kind whatsoever that the vetting process needs to be revamped, fixed, addressed, or whatever? 800,000 refugees here since 9/11 - not a one has killed an American citizen, and 3 have been charged with terrorism-related crimes. That's 99.99999% effective. So many people are saying this is a a good idea until we can solve the problem with our vetting - the question is, what problem? There doesn't seem to be one that exists, and though I and others have countless times posted the screening process graphics from the White House, nobody has ever cared to respond.

There's a few problems I have with immigration at large:

1. Our path to citizenship sucks and it's way too hard for good people to enter the country legally.

2. Our ability to prevent bad immigration sucks and it's way too easy for bad people to enter the country illegally.

3. People who attempt to solve problem #1 by exacerbating #2 are part of the problem.

4. People who don't want to solve #1 until #2 is solved are part of the problem.

I remember thinking in 2011/2012 that then President Obama could redeem himself in the upcoming election by pushing an issue that was very ripe in my opinion: solving #1 and #2 with a broad immigration reform. He (nor did Romney) talk about immigration.

re: the bolded, what do these have anything to do with Trump's refugee ban? It is easy for bad people to enter our country, period. Forget illegally. They can get here on tourist visas with tremendous ease. They're not trying to pose as refugees or immigrate - that's way more work and way more difficult. Further, Obama actually did quite a bit. I see a lot of conservatives on Facebook referencing his Iraq refugee halt in 2011, which was in response to an actual terrorist threat in the states, and resulted in a revamp of our now extremely thorough and effective vetting procedures.

Evidence or support, do I have to find a Facebook post or reddit image to back my opinion?

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2015/11/the-refugee-vetting-process-will-fail

http://www.npr.org/2015/11/17/456395388/paris-attacks-ignite-debate-over-u-s-refugee-policy

http://immigrationreform.com/2016/09/30/naturalization-errors-expose-vetting-problems/

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-syria-refugees-vetting-gap-20170125-story.html ---Read this one first.

Ask the European countries that have been having issues with immigrants/refugees from some of these 7 countries if you think there aren't issues.

As far as what you bolded, I was stating my opinion on Immigration as a whole.

Your position is that because some countries in Europe have problems with those countries, the US has to BAN ALL travel & immigration for ANYONE associated with those countries until the US determines IF our vetting needs to be changed? This is your opinion despite the high success rate of this vetting?

Again, I am not saying it is perfect and by all means, lets look at improving our immigration vetting procedures. Nothing has been provided that indicates this type of ban is needed for improvement to take place. Nor is there any quantitative evidence the ban is needed to address an immediate or imminent threat.

Do we have to shut down the Treasury while the IRS implements changes to tax code? Do we have to shut down all police enforcement from a department while we investigate an officer? Do we close school districts while we review student achievement scores? Do we stop all interstate narcotics enforcement while the DEA reviews states legalizing marijuana?

The idea this ban is anything but racist policy is laughable given how few of the "bad element" have made it through...

 

[GM_Tood]

So, per your links, assuming they are all factual and not "fake news", here's what we know for sure:

1. The vetting process is extremely rigid, thorough, rigorous and lengthy.

2. In 16 years, and 800,000 refugees, none of have committed acts of terror, and 3 have been charged with planning acts of terror.

3. There was a technological gap that was found, and fixed, and might have let a small number slip through, which are currently being investigated.

4. There might be inconsistency within the fingerprint databases.

5. Some politicians think there's still the potential for danger.

6. A year and a half ago a conservative writer predicted the refugee screening process will fail, eventually.

I still fail to see the problem that results in shutting the whole thing down, even if temporarily. 99.9999% efficiency in a pool of almost 1 million people speaks for itself.

If we cannot get accurate or any vetting information from these countries, or the process being followed to enter data is not 100% accurate, then I would say a review would be in order, no? Or is it up to the US to gather information on these foreign nationals?

I guess you can then argue: Why can't these be fixed without putting a temp ban in? For that, I do not have an answer as I do not know the details behind the entirety of the Immigration/Refugee information gathering/databases/processes that goes into vetting.

 

[Cdog923]

Here's an interesting and chilling take on the Immigration Ban and the reports (as posters already commented previously) that DHS officials were not respecting the court orders that prevented those bans from taking place:

https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/trial-balloon-for-a-coup-e024990891d5#.rvs7gzhlh

...the administration is testing the extent to which the DHS (and other executive agencies) can act and ignore orders from the other branches of government. This is as serious as it can possibly get: all of the arguments about whether order X or Y is unconstitutional mean nothing if elements of the government are executing them and the courts are being ignored.

Yesterday was the trial balloon for a coup d’état against the United States. It gave them useful information.

The case made here is not too far fetched, especially when one takes into account how many Federal vacancies and dismissals have occurred. And this, coupled with the theory that Trump is using this action as a way to find out who is loyal to the United States or the Trump Administration (with the explicit purpose of replacing the former with more of the latter) does not bode well for our country.

Also, going back to the 'golden showers' dossier...

On Wednesday, Reuters reported (in great detail) how 19.5% of Rosneft, Russia’s state oil company, has been sold to parties unknown. This was done through a dizzying array of shell companies, so that the most that can be said with certainty now is that the money “paying” for it was originally loaned out to the shell layers by VTB (the government’s official bank), even though it’s highly unclear who, if anyone, would be paying that loan back; and the recipients have been traced as far as some Cayman Islands shell companies.

Why is this interesting? Because the much-maligned Steele Dossier (the one with the golden showers in it) included the statement that Putin had offered Trump 19% of Rosneft if he became president and removed sanctions. The reason this is so interesting is that the dossier said this in July, and the sale didn’t happen until early December. And 19.5% sounds an awful lot like “19% plus a brokerage commission.”

Yeah...interesting indeed.

It's amazing how the pro-Trump folks seem to have scurried away from the light of this and other threads as of late. :-|

What's the point in even commenting at this point? There's no way folks are really going to listen to anything. Everyone is so worked up it's just not worth it to me.

I'd love to listen to someone explain their support for an administration that thinks putting 5 year olds in handcuffs at the airport is a good idea.

See..........it's assumed I'm okay with that, even though I never said that at any point, just because I voted for Trump. #assumptions

I'm sorry, but you sanctioned this.

 

[Oade]

Here's a conservative view on the matter. I have tried to stay away from this issue all weekend because its clearly creating a lot of opinion/emotion, so maybe there are some parts of this article that are wrong, I wouldn't know, but overall there are some fair points made.

Also, there are links within the article to other articles, that I am not posing in the quotes that stood out to me.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/no-trump%e2%80%99s-immigration-order-isn%e2%80%99t-racist-or-reminiscent-of-the-holocaust/ar-AAmp8dX?li=BBnb7Kz#image=3

Original Article: http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/30/no-trumps-immigration-order-isnt-racist-reminiscent-holocaust/

Yet 13 percent of Syrian refugees say they support ISIS, and a survey of Syrians from every region of the country found something that should give every person comparing them to Jewish refugees pause.

A fifth of those interviewed said the Islamic State—the brutal Islamist group known for its beheadings, and that rules over large swaths of Syria and Iraq—is a positive influence on the country. Eighty-two percent said they believe the Islamic State was created by the United States and its allies.

Europe also stands as a testimony of what’s different about this refugee crisis and what Trump is trying to prevent. England and Wales have reported that more than “56 percent of Syrian refugees committed severe crimes in less than a year.” Police have arrested 900 Syrians for crimes that include rape and child abuse.

In Germany, migrants were linked to 69,000 crimes in the first quarter of 2016, and another report shows that refugees committed 92,000 more crimes in 2015 than they had the year before, showing an increase of criminal activity with the influx of immigrants and refugees into the country.

Another difference that’s significant is that Trump’s order is not permanent, but temporary, lasting three to four months. It also allows for exceptions. According to the order,

Regarding Syria,

Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.


[T]he Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis
, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest — including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship — and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.

So Syrian Refugees are technically allowed, on a case-by-case basis, and considering the social outrage, I would expect some acceptions to be made shortly.

As David French writes at National Review, “Before 2016, when Obama dramatically ramped up refugee admissions, Trump’s 50,000 stands roughly in-between a typical year of refugee admissions in George W. Bush’s two terms and a typical year in Obama’s two terms.”

In 2002, the United States admitted only 27,131 refugees. It admitted fewer than 50,000 in 2003, 2006, and 2007
. As for President Obama, he was slightly more generous than President Bush, but his refugee cap from 2013 to 2015 was a mere 70,000, and in 2011 and 2012 he admitted barely more than 50,000 refugees himself
.
The bottom line is that Trump is improving security screening and intends to admit refugees at close to the average rate of the 15 years before Obama’s dramatic expansion in 2016. Obama’s expansion was a departure from recent norms, not Trump’s contraction.
 
Yet, despite the facts, there’s panic that Trump has banned all Muslims, that he’s instituting racism (even though Muslim isn’t a race), and that he’s turning his back on the helpless of the world in the most heartless of ways.

So if the numbers in that final quote are correct, and if Trump's goal of allowing roughly 50k refugees is true, the in reality that number is probably more than any other president in US history except for Obama, and maybe (maybe?) during WW2? I fail to see how that is worth all of this backlash.

I didn't vote for Trump (or anyone for that matter), and I don't agree with the ban in general, but at the same time, I don't see this as an awful bad thing either - so long as the "temporary" terms of it all are indeed "temporary".