- Joined
- Aug 10, 2013
- Messages
- 20,259
- Reaction score
- 21,685
- Location
- Cambridge, MA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Trump said the US would "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."
At the time it was introduced, defenders of the ban insisted it was just a temporary measure. The argument was that the administration needed 90 days to review and/or improve vetting policy and procedures, after which the ban would be lifted.
Trump himself indicated as much:
And while the courts blocked the actual ban (specifically sections 3(c), 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), and 5(e) of the EO) from taking effect, I'm not aware of any court blocking sections 3(a) and 3(b)--ostensibly the rationale for the ban--from proceeding. In other words, there's been nothing preventing Homeland Security from completing its charge to "immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat."
Given that the 90 day window they supposedly needed to review those vetting procedures and implement any improvements lapsed last week (and, indeed, the report on DHS's review of the vetting procedures was due over 60 days ago), why is this matter still tying up judicial resources? Surely this was a top priority for the administration and was completed on time.
There shouldn't be any need for a ban at this point. Unless, of course, it was never intended to be temporary anyway and the rationale for it was just a smokescreen.
Here Is The Full Text Of Trump's Muslim Ban Executive Order That Trashed American DemocracySection 3(c)....I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).
The was no "Muslim Ban." That is an intentional misrepresentation (ala Orwellian "1984 Newspeak") of the Executive Order designed to push the xenophobic and anti-religion narrative.
So to answer the actual question, was the temporary ban on travel/immigration of citizens of seven specified nations of concern intended to be permanent? The answer is clearly NO.
At the time it was introduced, defenders of the ban insisted it was just a temporary measure. The argument was that the administration needed 90 days to review and/or improve vetting policy and procedures, after which the ban would be lifted.
Trump himself indicated as much:
And while the courts blocked the actual ban (specifically sections 3(c), 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), and 5(e) of the EO) from taking effect, I'm not aware of any court blocking sections 3(a) and 3(b)--ostensibly the rationale for the ban--from proceeding. In other words, there's been nothing preventing Homeland Security from completing its charge to "immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat."
Given that the 90 day window they supposedly needed to review those vetting procedures and implement any improvements lapsed last week (and, indeed, the report on DHS's review of the vetting procedures was due over 60 days ago), why is this matter still tying up judicial resources? Surely this was a top priority for the administration and was completed on time.
There shouldn't be any need for a ban at this point. Unless, of course, it was never intended to be temporary anyway and the rationale for it was just a smokescreen.
What "Muslim ban" was this? As far as I know, such a ban was never attempted. That was pure liberal media spin.
Are you uncomfortable calling something the President did a Muslim ban?
Trump was never shy about expressing his ultimate intentions:
Talk about pushing the xenophobic and anti-religion narrative!
Which raises the question of why he's still seeking to implement it. The 90 days needed to review our vetting procedures has passed.
And what went into effect?
Nothing, as it turned out.
The question is why the administration is still tying up the courts with this EO if they've completed their review of vetting procedures. There shouldn't be a need for any ban at this point if they were being truthful about the rationale for it.
At the time it was introduced, defenders of the ban insisted it was just a temporary measure. The argument was that the administration needed 90 days to review and/or improve vetting policy and procedures, after which the ban would be lifted.
Trump himself indicated as much:
And while the courts blocked the actual ban (specifically sections 3(c), 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), and 5(e) of the EO) from taking effect, I'm not aware of any court blocking sections 3(a) and 3(b)--ostensibly the rationale for the ban--from proceeding. In other words, there's been nothing preventing Homeland Security from completing its charge to "immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat."
Given that the 90 day window they supposedly needed to review those vetting procedures and implement any improvements lapsed last week (and, indeed, the report on DHS's review of the vetting procedures was due over 60 days ago), why is this matter still tying up judicial resources? Surely this was a top priority for the administration and was completed on time.
There shouldn't be any need for a ban at this point. Unless, of course, it was never intended to be temporary anyway and the rationale for it was just a smokescreen.
Trump was never shy about expressing his ultimate intentions:
Talk about pushing the xenophobic and anti-religion narrative!
At the time it was introduced, defenders of the ban insisted it was just a temporary measure. The argument was that the administration needed 90 days to review and/or improve vetting policy and procedures, after which the ban would be lifted.
Trump himself indicated as much:
And while the courts blocked the actual ban (specifically sections 3(c), 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), and 5(e) of the EO) from taking effect, I'm not aware of any court blocking sections 3(a) and 3(b)--ostensibly the rationale for the ban--from proceeding. In other words, there's been nothing preventing Homeland Security from completing its charge to "immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat."
Given that the 90 day window they supposedly needed to review those vetting procedures and implement any improvements lapsed last week (and, indeed, the report on DHS's review of the vetting procedures was due over 60 days ago), why is this matter still tying up judicial resources? Surely this was a top priority for the administration and was completed on time.
There shouldn't be any need for a ban at this point. Unless, of course, it was never intended to be temporary anyway and the rationale for it was just a smokescreen.
At the time it was introduced, defenders of the ban insisted it was just a temporary measure. The argument was that the administration needed 90 days to review and/or improve vetting policy and procedures, after which the ban would be lifted.
Trump himself indicated as much:
And while the courts blocked the actual ban (specifically sections 3(c), 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), and 5(e) of the EO) from taking effect, I'm not aware of any court blocking sections 3(a) and 3(b)--ostensibly the rationale for the ban--from proceeding. In other words, there's been nothing preventing Homeland Security from completing its charge to "immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat."
Given that the 90 day window they supposedly needed to review those vetting procedures and implement any improvements lapsed last week (and, indeed, the report on DHS's review of the vetting procedures was due over 60 days ago), why is this matter still tying up judicial resources? Surely this was a top priority for the administration and was completed on time.
There shouldn't be any need for a ban at this point. Unless, of course, it was never intended to be temporary anyway and the rationale for it was just a smokescreen.
Guiliani admitting that was the purpose and the fact all those countries are vastly muslim sure gives it away
At the time it was introduced, defenders of the ban insisted it was just a temporary measure. The argument was that the administration needed 90 days to review and/or improve vetting policy and procedures, after which the ban would be lifted.
Trump himself indicated as much:
And while the courts blocked the actual ban (specifically sections 3(c), 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), and 5(e) of the EO) from taking effect, I'm not aware of any court blocking sections 3(a) and 3(b)--ostensibly the rationale for the ban--from proceeding. In other words, there's been nothing preventing Homeland Security from completing its charge to "immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat."
Given that the 90 day window they supposedly needed to review those vetting procedures and implement any improvements lapsed last week (and, indeed, the report on DHS's review of the vetting procedures was due over 60 days ago), why is this matter still tying up judicial resources? Surely this was a top priority for the administration and was completed on time.
There shouldn't be any need for a ban at this point. Unless, of course, it was never intended to be temporary anyway and the rationale for it was just a smokescreen.
Are you uncomfortable calling something the President did a Muslim ban?
I'm all for a Muslim ban. To get into the Country you have to Profess Jesus Christ. You would have to learn the Christian Doctrine and be able to take tests on it and recite hymns. Hey, they'd have to read the Bible. They could look at it as a cultural study. Then when you go to Muslim Country you have to Chant, "There is no God but Allah and Mohammad is his Prophet and recite Muslim doctrine, Koran and hymns.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?