Immigration Ban

[Danny Bateman]

[BigRedBuster]

[QMany]

Decent summary of the new Order:

 

 

I think the courts will now have to rule on the "Muslim ban" intent.

[QMany]

[BigRedBuster]

People opposing the EO will have a problem on the "Muslim ban" issue due to the fact they haven't banned all Muslim countries.

 

People supporting the EO will have a problem on the "Muslim Ban" issue due to the rhetoric during the campaign where he can easily be quoted as saying "I will ban ALL MUSLIMS".

 

 

PS.....I still would like to know why if a month ago he needed a 120 day ban on all immigration....why doesn't he now just need a 90 day ban???

[NM11046]

So from what I'm reading - it's still ok for immigration from all the countries that he has personal, financial ties to in the middle east right?

[Danny Bateman]

BRB, the second part of what you said pertaining to those supporting the EO still helps support the idea that he wanted a backdoor Muslim ban. Giuliani's statement on Fox News isn't going away, either.

 

Just because it isn't an out and out complete Muslim ban from all countries doesn't mean that it's not a Muslim ban on people from those given countries. That's an "all or nothing" type of argument I've never really gotten.

 

When the first one went through the courts, they never really provided evidence this travel ban was necessary, just that it was within the rights of the Executive Branch. The judges ruled in part because they provided no such evidence.

I can't imagine they have any new evidence now.

[BigRedBuster]

BRB, the second part of what you said pertaining to those supporting the EO still helps support the idea that he wanted a backdoor Muslim ban. Giuliani's statement on Fox News isn't going away, either.

 

Just because it isn't an out and out complete Muslim ban from all countries doesn't mean that it's not a Muslim ban on people from those given countries. That's an "all or nothing" type of argument I've never really gotten.

 

When the first one went through the courts, they never really provided evidence this travel ban was necessary, just that it was within the rights of the Executive Branch. The judges ruled in part because they provided no such evidence.

 

I can't imagine they have any new evidence now.

The first time their defense was built by their egos. Trump literally thought he could just do whatever he wants and no need to show why he's doing it.

 

This time, I expect their defense of the EO will at least attempt to show why it's needed.

[Danny Bateman]

 

BRB, the second part of what you said pertaining to those supporting the EO still helps support the idea that he wanted a backdoor Muslim ban. Giuliani's statement on Fox News isn't going away, either.

 

Just because it isn't an out and out complete Muslim ban from all countries doesn't mean that it's not a Muslim ban on people from those given countries. That's an "all or nothing" type of argument I've never really gotten.

 

When the first one went through the courts, they never really provided evidence this travel ban was necessary, just that it was within the rights of the Executive Branch. The judges ruled in part because they provided no such evidence.

 

I can't imagine they have any new evidence now.

The first time their defense was built by their egos. Trump literally thought he could just do whatever he wants and no need to show why he's doing it.

 

This time, I expect their defense of the EO will at least attempt to show why it's needed.

 

 

You'd think so, wouldn't you?

 

They've clearly made some changes - making it clear it doesn't apply to green card holders and Iraq. But I've yet to see them point to any reasonable evidence that supports the efficacy of the ban, and wouldn't you think Trump would be all over that, trying to publicize it as much as possible?

 

On the other hand, we do have evidence of Trump contradicting his own statements:

 

 

And a leaked DHS memo suggesting the ban is rather useless:

 

 

A Department of Homeland Security report assessing the terrorist threat posed by people from the seven countries covered by President Trump’s travel ban casts doubt on the necessity of the executive order, concluding that citizenship is an “unreliable” threat indicator and that people from the seven countries have rarely been implicated in U.S.-based terrorism

 

Now, that was an "incomplete" report based on public data. But if they've got some great argument as to why this ban would make us safer, they sure are keeping a lid on it. Kind of like Trump's "secret plans" for defeating ISIS and fixing healthcare, eh?

[zoogs]

"Be happy we exempted Iraq, screw the other countries."

 

Pass.

[NM11046]

I still have this lingering feeling that all this is a show to either distract us from something bigger, or to lay the groundwork for something bigger. My spidey senses are on high alert (notice I didn't say spicey senses, though i do think I'll try to use that sometime after a particularly good press conference).

 

If nothing else this will flame the, "everybody is out to get me - come on Trumpeters, we're victims of the MSM" message that they love to reinvigorate now and again.

[Moiraine]

People opposing the EO will have a problem on the "Muslim ban" issue due to the fact they haven't banned all Muslim countries.

 

People supporting the EO will have a problem on the "Muslim Ban" issue due to the rhetoric during the campaign where he can easily be quoted as saying "I will ban ALL MUSLIMS".

 

 

PS.....I still would like to know why if a month ago he needed a 120 day ban on all immigration....why doesn't he now just need a 90 day ban???

 

On the PS, I agree. Was the original premise not to give them time to look at vetting procedures? What have they been doing for the past 30 days?

[knapplc]

 

[NM11046]

Geeez - this should stir up some good $hit with the folks who follow him though.

[NM11046]

An excellent overview - including a breakdown of what's different from the last and why: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-compare-travel-ban/