Statement from White House

[JustLost]

Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
I find it odd that rightwhingers no longer have a problem with a president making laws using executive orders now that a republican is president

And by odd, I mean predictable

I have not heard from rightwhingers on States rights or the debt.

 

[KevinKohler]

IOW, the rightwhinger position on the president making laws using EOs is: It is unconstitutional when a dem does it and we look forward to a repub doing the same.

Pretty much.

 

[SheWolf]

I'm interested. What are your thoughts..l

View attachment 67213273

I can't read it. It's too small.

 

[DiAnna]

WAPO is in such bad shape I can't see your link til I pay money.

Actually, it was a great article. Fortunately, I didn't get asked for money.

The first two-thirds of the article, the main part you'd be interested in, talked about what Obama's seemingly infamous visa slowdown in 2011 was all about. The last part addresses the differences between what Obama did and why, and what Trump did. I think it's small enough that I can post that part.

First, Obama responded to an actual threat—the discovery that two Iraqi refugees had been implicated in bomb-making in Iraq that had targeted U.S. troops. (Iraq, after all, had been a war zone.) Under congressional pressure, officials decided to reexamine all previous refugees and also impose new screening procedures, which led to a slowdown in processing new applications. Trump, by contrast, issued his executive order without any known triggering threat. (His staff has pointed to attacks unrelated to the countries name din his order.)

Second, Obama did not announce there was a ban on visa applications. In fact, as seen in Napolitano’s answer to Collins, administration officials danced around that question. There was certainly a lot of news reporting that visa applications had been slowed to a trickle. But the Obama administration never said it was their policy to halt all applications. Even so, the delays did not go unnoticed, so there was a lot of critical news reporting at the time about the angst of Iraqis waiting for approval.

Third, Obama’s policy did not prevent all citizens of that country, including green-card holders, from traveling to the United States. Trump’s policy is much more sweeping, though officials have appeared to pull back from barring permanent U.S. residents... But so far this is worthy of at least Two Pinocchios.

 

[trouble13]

Im personally opposed to an outright ban but agree that only people who can be vetted should be allowed entry.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Kurmugeon]

I can't read it. It's too small.

Well, Post #18 had the transcript, but for those of U.S. with old eyes, a headache already, and an astigmatism:

“America is a proud nation of immigrants and we will continue to show compassion to those fleeing oppression, but we will do so while protecting our own citizens and border.

America has always been the land of the free and home of the brave. We will keep it free and keep it safe, as the media knows, but refuses to say.

My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months.


The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror.

To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting. This is not about religion - this is about terror and keeping our country safe.

There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order.

We will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days.

I have tremendous feeling for the people involved in this horrific humanitarian crisis in Syria. My first priority will always be to protect and serve our country, but as President I will find ways to help all those who are suffering.”