Trump Signs Order to Restrict Refugees from 7 Countries But Not Saudi Arabia

Trump wanted a 90 days ban, starting on 2/1/17, so the admin can develop extreme vetting procedures. It has been 145 days.

Has any extreme vetting procedures been developed? <--- isn't this what's important for security?

 

I want to clarify and say I absolutely believe it was much more politically driven to shore up the votes than him truly believing it as an actual solution. The travel ban was nothing more than a hollow execution to say he tried to do something about the extremist threat, one that nobody knows how to deal with effectively. That said, I think Trump looks down on anyone who is not wealthy. He respects wealth and power provided neither of those two attributes cross him. (sans the sexist allegation which seem to have merit) This is where I find the real danger with Trump.

If you want to look for someone who looks down on anyone who isnt white, that would be Sessions.

The danger is entrenching the other group. If one calls them deplorables and the party of racists, a blanket comment is being made that should only apply to a very few. This doesnt sit well with whites by alluding they need to check their white privilege, especially when many of them have friends and family who encompass many races and cultures. By entrenching them, they are more likely to support a more extremist candidate over a moderate. While it might be a strategy to put forth an extremist candidate believing they stand no chance in the general election, its also a very foolish gamble if that extremist candidate wins.

And this is exactly whats wrong with the Islamic approach. Yes, we need to recognize that modern Islam promotes intolerance, which in turns breeds extremists, but we must be very careful about insulting all Muslims and validating their belief the West is a threat.

 

Victory Trump

Liberals cry

 

I don't see anything wrong with the decision, that watered down version is not unconstitutional imo. I think it's narrow enough to be interpreted as just a ban on people that come from unstable governments.

The ban itself was definitely political through and through, it was a show for his hardcores to begin his term that he will do something about the Muslims. It was poorly thought out (or not thoughtout at all) and executed as disastrously as possible. I still remember they were changing the criteria for the first ban like every other day because no one was clear about who to ban and whom not to.

I sincerely doubt there were actually any national security issues to merit the ban, it just seemed really random. They looked a list of ME unstable governments and wrote the ban on the fly and then started panic changing it because they didn't realize the cluster **** it would cause. The whole 90 days until we figure it out thing is just so arbitrary and I bet at the end of this 90 days nothing gets done either.

 

It's sad that for many conservatives this is about upsetting liberals.

By the way, I've not seen a single liberal crying or even this, not even huffpost. The thing is so watered down that this was barely news.

But hey! GOP VICTORY! LIBERALS CRY! YAY!

 

For the most part liberals have tried to ignore it since there is not really any way to spin it....other than the way you just tried to. There was no legal basis for the 2 appeals courts doing what they did and that judicial activism got slapped down by a unanimous SCOTUS. If it would have been a partisan split then you'd probably have a better way to spin it, but given that it's clear the opposition to the travel ban was always just BS, you don't have a leg to stand on.

 

Been way pass 90 days since the ban initially started. Will be pass 90 days again of this water down version till the court hear the case. Plenty of opportunities to develop their supposed extreme vetting. Have they? Will they? No one care it seems.

 

The watered down version in a quick summary below. I think the water down version is a good balance between keeping some of the lower court judgement in place (lol at no legal basis) and allowing what's narrowly left to proceed. And of course, the ~90 days effect of it before the court actually start to hear arguments could be coincident, but interesting in itself, especially given the "moot" questions directed to both sides.

The court also ask both sides to address the question: “Whether the challenges to §2(c) became moot on June 14, 2017.”


So whom, exactly, will the travel ban now bar from the country? I asked Becca Heller, the director of the International Refugee Assistance Project, which brought one of the cases that is now before the Court. “It would have to be someone seeking a tourist visa from one of the six countries, who knows no one in the U.S., and who has no reason to be in the U.S. except for vacation,” she told me. Even people from any of the six countries travelling to the U.S. for medical procedures would have a strong case for being able to evade the ban’s restrictions, she said. The only people the Justices identified as being subject to the travel ban were foreign nationals with no ties to the United States. “There are no such people represented in the cases before the Court,” David Cole, the legal director of the A.C.L.U., which argued against the ban before an appeals court, told me. In effect, the Court created a separate category of people—beyond the scope of all the plaintiffs in the lower-court cases—in order to find a situation where the Trump travel ban could still apply.


For those that care about score. 9-0 for the watered down version. 6-3 against the original version. Trump original version loses again! 0-4. The extreme three Justices for the original versions are Alito, Thomas, and brand new baby Gorsuch.

https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=3877451-Travel-Ban-16-1436-l6hc

 

exactly, who does this really ban, the dozen tourists from Syria and Somalia.

It probably affects refugees from those countries, but refugees coming into the US are already heavily vetted and limited to begin with so it brings nothing new really.

 

Conversely, that argument could also be looked at this way... what all did the US gain after this bitter debate? We create the appearance that we are tougher on terrorism, despite the fact that few will be banned, and there was no prior terrorist attack that would have been prevented? And instead we create the appearance we are unfairly targeting Muslims, further diminishing the U.S. image in that region (and perhaps, worldwide) and may actually provide terrorists a recruiting message? Just to allow those pushing this a "win"?

 

You are the one spinning it.

Of course, you know better than the appeals courts and you also can read the mind of us liberals to know that we care about this.

So, where are the crying liberals about this? I've read several left leaning sites, seen forums/reddits and it seems not many on the left are crying or that upset about it. Sorry. I know that's disappointing to hear as conservatives love racking up 'wins'.

All this did managed to do was lower our reputation around the world of course.

 

@Space Ghost Agree with the analysis. One thing I would say regarding calling out the deplorables though is that, as a cis white American heterosexual middle class culturally-Christian Southern male, I feel it is incumbent on me to 'police my own' and gently encourage my brothers and sisters to be more righteous when I see them acting in racist and otherwise deplorable ways. Obviously, we don't want to hear such criticism from CAIR, or BLM, or gay activists, or Germany, or Antifa. The message is better coming from me, a guy who comes from the same people, grew up in the same environment, and learned the same values. If they can't hear criticism from me, who will they accept it from?

I doubt the terrorists were fooled for a second.

 

Of course, the terrorists were actually happy with Trump's move. The terrorists weren't the ones they were trying to fool.

 

In this instance instead of crying, the liberals are just pretending that they won despite the obvious. Due to the unanimous decision, there really was no other way to spin this and outrage wasn't going to do anything because it's effectively over already. This is one of those instances where there never should have been crying or b****ing about this travel ban in the first place....so now that the fight is over and it is back in place, it's good that the b****ing and crying has ceased.

As to "knowing better than the appeals courts", the decision they made was a political one, not a legal one. Even they know better than what they did, they just did it anyway "because politics". For that reason IMO their ridiculous decision is not so much a negative reflection of their legal knowledge, just of their ethics. They were willing to put politics ahead of the law. They aren't the only ones to do this, but it's always wrong when it's done.

 

Not one person has yet to provide any merit to tangible safety to us American citizens from this travel ban. One of the countries, Iran, the stereotype of their immigrants coming to the states is they are STEM lords. This travel ban is nothing more than pandering to his base.

Let's put it this way, if the Supreme Court decision making is restrained by not being allowed to consider INTENT, then they definitely ought to.

 

So you hold white American heterosexual middle class culturally-Christian Southern males to a higher standard? Is that not racist?

 

I think he made a case for inward criticism rather than outward high horsing that everyone does here.

 

Higher than what?

 

He also mentions his class, religion, and sexual orientation.

 

Holding members of one skin color to a different set of standards than another, Correct me if I'm wrong, is racist.