Trump's Travel Ban 2.0

[lecter]

A travel ban from 6 countries will have a tremendous impact on national security!




(it won't)

 

[touchedbyjab]

Agreed, stop accepting refugees but stop creating them as well.

I can get on board with you here. *goes in for an Arnold style handshake*

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

Agreed, stop accepting refugees but stop creating them as well.

Basically this. The same assholes who don't want refugees are the first to want to bomb brown people and create them.

 

[lecter]

Despite moral reservations and the fact that it would create even more outrage, his original 'Muslim ban' actually makes more sense in some ways.
It's immoral but from a purely pragmatic point of view, one could make the argument that it might increase national security or serve as some sort of intermediate solution until extreme vetting© is in place. The travel ban based on nation states just doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[Seano]

I hope no one would be dumb enough to make that argument.

Lots of people make that argument every day and thousands upon thousands support it.

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

Despite moral reservations and the fact that it would create even more outrage, his original 'Muslim ban' actually makes more sense in some ways.
It's immoral but from a purely pragmatic point of view, one could make the argument that it might increase national security or server as some sort of intermediate solution until extreme vetting© is in place. The travel ban based on nation states just doesn't make any sense at all.

Removing Iraq makes the ban even more illogical.

The whole issue is that it's just lip service to xenophobic supporters without actually impacting safety at all.

If it hurt feelings but helped security then so be it. But so far it's only a great big cop out. And the people who support it don't care about safety. They only care about keeping Muslims out, but are hiding behind the curtain of national security. They are being disingenuous.

 

[electricfuneral]

Despite moral reservations and the fact that it would create even more outrage, his original 'Muslim ban' actually makes more sense in some ways.
It's immoral but from a purely pragmatic point of view, one could make the argument that it might increase national security or server as some sort of intermediate solution until extreme vetting© is in place. The travel ban based on nation states just doesn't make any sense at all.

I think this is a case of trump getting something passed just for optics. This looks like a win and a campaign promise kept.

 

[klnOmega]

Lots of people make that argument every day and thousands upon thousands support it.

That's probably true. A lot of retard in the world.

 

[Sir Galahad]

Goes into effect in 10days. Bans the previous nations except for Iraq...
Basically banning all nations fighting AlQaida and ISIS and exempting nations that support/fund and populate ISIS and AlQaida. Pathetic and stupid. The last terrorist attack in the US was a paki from saudi arabia.

Legal residents and visa holders will not be banned.

 

[Prutfis]

That's probably true. A lot of retard in the world.

There sure is. A cheeto with a combover was just elected POTUS.

 

[lecter]

Ok, just read a summary of the EO. I can't really say I'm 'opposed' to anything it says but I just don't see much benefit, looking at the bigger picture.

 

[Fawlty]

It's...better. I'm in a good mood today, so I'll just say it's better.

 

[Gervinho]

What has iran done to be in the list. Never heard of iranian suicide bomber. Also didnt know sudan produce terrorist

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

What has iran done to be in the list. Never heard of iranian suicide bomber. Also didnt know sudan produce terrorist

List should be Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Pakistan. And when these countries go "but we're friends" Trump could tell them friends don't harbor and produce people who commit attacks on our soil.

 

[Gervinho]

List should be Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Pakistan. And when these countries go "but we're friends" Trump could tell them friends don't harbor and produce people who commit attacks on our soil.

That would make sense. But its easier to do it on failed state like somalia and syria and make it look like you are doing something

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

That would make sense. But its easier to do it on failed state like somalia and syria and make it look like you are doing something

Right. So if you're not gonna do it where it is legitimate with actual past cases to warrant it then it shouldn't be done at all. All smoke and mirrors to satisfy a bunch of xenophobes and bigots.

 

[ManCityFC9]

It is if people would pay attention. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are not countries we receive the majority of our refugees from. There's not the same need to improve our vetting from these countries.

Well said; I have read the latest of your rebuttal in the rest of the thread and completely agree.

The truth is people want to tie in 9/11/2001 to 2017; not considering the aftermath of the Iraq and Afgan wars
-US relationships and collaboration with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are in a relatively good place
--Saudi has even agreed to set up refugee settlements for displaced Syrians.
-US relationship with Iraq is in a much better place today than before(in terms of database access and communication lines)

As I understand it; the point of this Travel Ban is to put a temporary hold (120-day for 6 countries) on the current refugee applicants and to immigration from these countries in general
-The purpose is to improve current vetting processes with these countries due to the level of difficulty of retrieving information and verifying identities of visa, asylum and refugee applicants.
--This, IMO, is not too much to ask; improve the process, especially considering it is only a 4-month ban.

Also the current EO cleans up the real mess of the one in January; the issue was with those with visa privileges, residency, and worker permits that had already gone through the process being told to stay out.

Consider the new climate, the latest issues of terrorism, and the current relationships with countries off of the list; this is actually a decent and fair plan(4-months only).
-NOW if it unjustifiably exceeds 4 months and turns into something of an indefinite ban, I could understand issue with it.
--But I am all for improving the vetting process; a 2 year process isn't secure just because it takes 2 years to go through; there may be ideas by subject matter experts who know how to improve it, I say let them(DHS, FBI, UN, etc.) do their jobs.

 

[Lanx]

anything that limits the importation of more Muslims, is a good thing

 

[lfd0311]

Goes into effect in 10days. Bans the previous nations except for Iraq...
Basically banning all nations fighting AlQaida and ISIS and exempting nations that support/fund and populate ISIS and AlQaida. Pathetic and stupid. The last terrorist attack in the US was a paki from saudi arabia.

Legal residents and visa holders will not be banned.

So basically a ban of all the muslim countries he doesn't have business dealings in.

The level of Liberal idiocy in these posts is embarrassing

 

[drstrangelov]

Seems like he cleaned it up pretty well. None of the changes will calm the folks with fanatical philosophical objection to any ban, but he was always going to live with that.

Any idea how legal activists plan to attack this?