Trump to unveil new travel ban Monday, without Iraq

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/06/politics/trump-travel-ban-iraq/index.html

Here's a list of the key differences:
- Iraq is no longer on the list
- The Ban will be phased in after 10 days
- The Refugee program will be suspended for 120 days (the previous version suspended Syrian refugees indefinitely)
- The order makes clear that it does not apply to lawful permanent residents (green card holders) and it does not apply to those with validly issued VISAs
- The White House collaborated for several weeks with officials at the Department of Homeland Security, the Justice Department and kept congressional leaders apprised of their progress this time
- The order no longer adds a religious preference to the refugee review
- The White House is attempting to help justify the need for the order by attacking a report which notes roughly 300 individuals who came here through the refugee program are currently under investigation.

 

Phased in over 10 days? So all the terrorists will flock in during that period right?

 

That depends, for critical lefties who think terrorism is only caused by invidious racial and religious discrimination by white folks the delay has no effect because the immigrants have not been exposed to any deplorable whiteys (yet). Conservatives, who, in light of the evidence question the claim "Islam is the religion of peace", are concerned Islamic fundamentalist jihadees may try to rush in as the Trump Administration struggles to accommodate liberal concerns over the due process rights of the terrorists.

The new Executive Order addresses the issues raised in liberal objections to its predecessor; former visa and Green Card holders are exempted, the ban on refugees from Syria is not permanent and Iraqis will be allowed (something the military wanted to encourage their cooperation in the fight against daesh).

I'm not pleased with the delay in application, but this will enable the authorities and airlines to gear up and have in place the pertinent arrangements to deal with those shocked and distressed travellers denied entry due to their unverifiable credentials.

 

One thing they forgot to add is that it will not recognize any new visa's generated from the time of the last ban, so helps protect against your concern.

 

Prediction; now watch Trump rubbish the credibility of his order by ranting about it on Twitter.
Something about keeping America safe from the (''proven'') terrorist evil of all the countries banned. Because, as we all know, only terrorists reside in those countries, not peaceful people. At least, that's what the paranoid Trump will claim.

In any case, expect some fascist-like rhetoric from Trump on Twitter that will only serve to discredit the executive order.
Which, again, undermines Trumps own credibility and his entire Presidency.
My advise to Trump; (Not!!) Keep your Twitter-mouth shut this time and see how things turn out.

But we all know what's gonna happen; Mr bigmouth must have his vile say on it.
By all means, go ahead. It will only further erode your credibility and the ban at the same time.

 

And the psycho Dem governors will proceed to courts immediately to make sure their states can keep accepting potential Islamic Terrorists.

 

Apparently all the war-traumatized Iraqis are welcome here, including the Octomom who quickly had 14 kids in America, eight of them in one day. I would imagine some Iraqis have a serious axe to grind, after we tortured many of them and—oh yeah—spent a trillion dollars thoroughly ruining their country for no reason.

 

Lest we forget; after his latest attempt to discriminate has been rejected in court, Trump will turn to Twitter again to accuse involved judges of being 'fake' and 'ridiculous' other similar insults. Same old, same old.

But remember; Trump still needs this (moral) victory in the courts, so he can feel empowered to introduce his Muslim-database-registry.
This is still Trumps fascist take-over of the country. So it's vital he does not receive an ounce of legal recognition regarding his discriminatory executive order.
If he does, the dog (Trump) will get of his leash and then no Muslim in the United States (man, woman, child,) will be safe from his segregation and planned deportations.

Just a reminder what's at stake.

Lest we forgot.

 

Specifically because those people are EXPONENTIALLY more likely to be new doctors, new small business owners, and new lawful contributors to their local communities.

 

I don't know why they'd exclude Iraq. And why not add Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to the ban if you really want to be safe?

 

Iraq was excluded probably because there are pro-American Iraqis who obtained visas because they took sides with the coalition forces.

 

Let's see last time criticized because it went into effect immediately and they stated because they didn't want terrorist rushing in and not phased in over 10 days and complaints he didn't do it immediately.

When everything is wrong nothing is wrong.

 

What discrimination?

 

I am extremely confident that you are misinterpreting an effort to use Trump's own words to demonstrate the fact that he was either wrong or lying last time as a "criticism" of the current ban.

 

I'm just pointing out that his previous arguments were fake. Don't you agree?

 

You don't think Trump forcing Muslims to register themselves (for being perceived terrorists) is discrimination? Perhaps you are unfamiliar with a little thing called the Holocaust...

 

Yeah, that's the reason. Being doctors. It couldn't possibly be because Muslims were the 2nd most loyal voting bloc for Obama, behind only blacks.

You know who's not likely to be doctors, statistically? Hispanics. That doesn't seem to affect the left's desire to bring Hispanics over, though. Seems a little inconsistent.

 

And they are taking American's jobs. Aside from the terrorists, I don't want ANY immigrants coming in.

 

Seems like he figured out something that would actually pass this time around.

 

Why would loyalty to Obama be a motivating factor when Obama will never on the ballot?

And the only reason that seems inconsistent is because you are making a strawman of an argument. I am not arguing that Muslim immigration should be encouraged because they become doctors (and therefore Hispanics should be rejected because they dont). I am arguing that all immigration should be encouraged because they are more likely to become contributing members of society.

 

Did you know that foreign born doctors help to fill the gap between those who attend medical school and the need for doctors? In other words, without foreign born immigrants, the United States would have roughly 20% fewer doctors and that, in turn, would place a tremendous strain on medical professionals that are already overworked.

 

The executive order does a better job of addressing the most critical constitutional issues - namely the establishment clause (no religious preference), the due process violation (green card and VISA holders are excluded), and the need for justification (by attaching a report that noted some 300 individuals who came here through refugee programs are under investigation).

Whether the ban serves any legitimate purpose beyond making his supporters feel better or encouraging more terrorist behavior is something that remains to be seen.

 

Yeah I don't see it making much, if any, difference. Though I'm sure we'll be seeing all the news storys about the 'attacks' it prevented.

This is definitely a defining time for the US, and it's going to offer a lot of information and data for decades to come, that's for sure.

 

They vote Democrat. That's all that matters.

Oh really? Even with the disproportionately high usage of welfare?

But yes, it is inconsistent. Muslim immigration shouldn't be hindered due to terrorism concerns because they are more likely to be doctors, yet Hispanics are not likely to be doctors yet we shouldn't hinder their immigration....

Ugghh, just say "I want more Democrat voters" and be done with it.

 

Here, the use of the word consistency is meant to imply that I am using the same logic to apply to both situations.

Example: I encourage more immigration because immigrants, BOTH MUSLIMS AND MEXICANS, are more likely to become contributing members of society. That is a consistent logic. If you want to discuss the specific methods through which each group contributes and try to use that as a method for distinguishing or promoting one group over the other, that is your choice.

Usage of welfare programs does almost nothing to negate my willingness to believe that they are a contributing member of society because the term "welfare" is extremely broad and covers everything from Medicaid and Food Stamps to Roads and Bridges.