The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
Neutral said:
so....

- Iraq no longer on list
- Green card holders unaffected
- Order imposed on 16 March

and is applicable to those who applied for visas after the 27th of Jan.
Click to expand...

That's a clever, possibly even sensible, move from them this time. It gives a 10 day warning to travellers who will be affected to change their plans and I'd imagine a good majority of them will want to avoid the situation of them being turned away. That means there will be less chaos this time and less chaos will mean less outrage. Less pictures of children in handcuffs and the like.

As far as sensible goes, it also gives time for any objections or legal challenges. It'll be less damaging to them if it's turned down before it's activated rather than crowds of people cheering and huge live press coverage as the judges pass their decision and allow those affected to move freely again.
 
Crossie said:
Hm. I'm by no means an expert on these matters but recent intelligence reports rebuked the suggestion that there's a particular terror threat by people from the previous seven, now six countries. I'd therefore expect states taking legal measures again.
Click to expand...


Seems odd to remove Iraq but the seven weren't ever called out by Trump anyway they were already picked out as threats. Previous dodgy US policy to blame
 
I wonder if they have closed the loophole? The BBC did a report following people that left one of the 7 countries that were originally banned, then they would fly to the UK, France or Germany and then get a flight from there to the USA. Apparently thousands of people used this loophole to gain entry to the USA.
 
langster said:
I wonder if they have closed the loophole? The BBC did a report following people that left one of the 7 countries that were originally banned, then they would fly to the UK, France or Germany and then get a flight from there to the USA. Apparently thousands of people used this loophole to gain entry to the USA.
Click to expand...
How would that work? I thought the ban was predicated on nationality held as opposed to country of flight origin.
 
Raoul said:
Great move to remove Iraq. Definitely much better than the first travel ban.
Click to expand...

Doesn't it still fall down at exactly the same place it did last time - banning travellers from those countries is not deemed to have any beneficial effect on national security?
 
Pexbo said:
Doesn't it still fall down at exactly the same place it did last time - banning travellers from those countries is not deemed to have any beneficial effect on national security?
Click to expand...

Yeah. There was a DHS statement to the effect that most covert to hardcore many years after they immigrate into US.

Politically he can count this as a tick mark to having done one of his election promises, though!
 
RedTiger said:
How would that work? I thought the ban was predicated on nationality held as opposed to country of flight origin.
Click to expand...

Nope, it was anyone travelling from those countries as well, in some airports. That was part of the problem, nobody knew what each other was doing, such poor direction and ambiguity from the top down. I will try to find the BBC report, it was on late at night so should be on World Service catch up/on Demand.
 
Pexbo said:
Doesn't it still fall down at exactly the same place it did last time - banning travellers from those countries is not deemed to have any beneficial effect on national security?
Click to expand...

Yep, pretty much the same concept. Just one less country and less rigid restrictions on existing visa and green card holders. Still rubbish policy, but less rubbish than the calamitous first one. Iraq should definitely not be on the list for SIV and diplomatic cooperation on ISIS reasons.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
Yeah. There was a DHS statement to the effect that most covert to hardcore many years after they immigrate into US.

Politically he can count this as a tick mark to having done one of his election promises, though!
Click to expand...

Of all the states listed only Syria presents a present danger, and at than only due to the refugee crisis making it easy for terror groups to capitalize on the confusion, something I recall during the worst days of the crisis in Europe.

Not sure if that was debunked, though, and for the US it's a considerably lower risk premise as its borders are less porous for people coming in from the ME.
 
Raoul said:
Yep, pretty much the same concept. Just one less country and less rigid restrictions on existing visa and green card holders. Still rubbish policy, but less rubbish than the calamitous first one. Iraq should definitely not be on the list for SIV and diplomatic cooperation on ISIS reasons.
Click to expand...

He couldn't even give you the definition of diplomacy, that's his main issue.

I said this about Trump in October:

Pexbo said:
This is the main reason I oppose Trump. It's not because he'll have his finger on the nuclear button or anything as extreme as that, it's that he will simply abuse his power. He's also got zero tact and will upset god knows how many powerful people the US currently has fragile relationships based on sensible mutual interests. I just don't see Trump considering the bigger picture and understanding the compromises that have to be made in some scenarios for a greater good in others (basically "politics"). That being said I think I also have a very different idea of what "greater good" is to him.

It's why I sympathise with Obama. I've got a huge adoration for him and believe him to be a good person who genuinely cares about people, the environment and other real issues. He can't afford to be idealistic and naive like a protester, campaigner or your average joe on the street with strong values. He has to constantly do a balancing act and consider wide reaching knock on effects to every decision he makes and even when he did make a good decision it was often blocked by the republican SCOTUS.

Trump will be a disaster on that front.

Talking of the SCOTUS, it's going to hurt the republicans not getting in this election, it's said to be a key election as another democrat President could be able to finally push through a more liberal balance which could finally mean tighter gun control.
Click to expand...

He's not capable of assessing all the facts and considering the implications, he acts first and sometimes thinks later. It's going to be a running theme for his Presidency, a rash decision causes complications in a way he just doesn't have the capacity to foresee and doesn't have the will to heed the warnings of those who can.

So he goes in two feet first and bans Iraqi nationals who then threaten to reciprocate and the US loses a tactical ally in the fight against ISIS. "Nobody knew international relations could be so complicated".
 
Also removed the text regarding protection of religious minorities (like Yazidis and Christians from Syria).

That means lesser problems in court for religious singling out, but a big feck you for the Conservative Christian wing in the Republican party wanting protection for the Christian Syrians.
 
I like how this new EO constantly harkens back to the previous one...compare and contrast - it's almost like they're working extra hard to convince you :lol:
 
Pexbo said:
The Republicans really are slowly pushing towards a one party state aren't they? They're trying to dismantle any democratic strength the DNC have.

Non-Republican-Bias media - tear them down.
Pro-Democrat Demographics - Dilute their voting bases throughout republican strongholds and suppress their rights to vote.
Traditionally Democrat Unions - Suffocate them by cutting their funding.
Federal Agencies favour Democrats? - Start liquidating them.

It's no longer democracy when the party in power is able to destroy the opposition party's infrastructure.
Click to expand...
Exactly what successful ruling party's achieved in corrupt Democratic countries like Malaysia, Bangladesh or Nigeria! Thats essentially to what US pokitics has now become!
 
sglowrider said:
Having worked in some dubious countries n including corrupt dictatorships ... my 6th sense tells me that Trump is a laundering front for the more unpleasant people/families around the world. They channel their money through him to invest into his franchised hotels .. who in turn are built but equally dubious characters who want to clean up their ill gotten gains.... all under the glamorous Trump brand.

Good read... the write said there r probably dozens of similar trump deals.

http://www.newyorker.com/contributors/adam-davidson
Click to expand...
Avram Glazer is a fully paid up member at Trump's Florida private club?

I read a members list the other day and it has all sorts of colourful characters in it- all of them utterly loaded.
 
afrocentricity said:
Break this down for me please, what am I seeing here Raoul?

I don't think they do. Maybe the public does. Think about it, as a journalist, are you going to quit your investigation and jump on a Trump tweet just because? No. I don't buy this at all... The public being caught up in the latest storm? Well that's another thing... Issues are being reported on (some admittedly underreported), but the tweets are being highlighted because social media is so prevalent nowadays. The average person also won't look past the immediate news in their various feeds.
Click to expand...

Well, look at it this way. News organizations, Social media and everyone that follows them would be talking about issue A (let's say Jeff Sessions issue) and out of nowhere in comes Trump with his Twitter tirade against Obama "wire tapp" (his spelling not mine) and the only things popular on the said platforms are those very tweets. The people who run the media, the people who follow the media are all on to the next news item.

At some point, I would think it is the media organization or a journalist's responsibility to keep the common people informed of what had happened recently. Some sort of a tracker on CNN (for instance) that just mentions the past issues and the work that is being done on those issues (by the journalist).

Otherwise, it becomes very easy for powerful people to control the news cycle - much to the detriment of the common public.
 
iKnowNothing said:
Well, look at it this way. News organizations, Social media and everyone that follows them would be talking about issue A (let's say Jeff Sessions issue) and out of nowhere in comes Trump with his Twitter tirade against Obama "wire tapp" (his spelling not mine) and the only things popular on the said platforms are those very tweets. The people who run the media, the people who follow the media are all on to the next news item.

At some point, I would think it is the media organization or a journalist's responsibility to keep the common people informed of what had happened recently. Some sort of a tracker on CNN (for instance) that just mentions the past issues and the work that is being done on those issues (by the journalist).

Otherwise, it becomes very easy for powerful people to control the news cycle - much to the detriment of the common public.
Click to expand...
Yup I agree with ya... It's a shame because the news is there, and good journalist are working hard. The public's general apathy is a pet peev of mine but what can you do? Short of Republican style propaganda?
 
Why won't this travel order suffer the same fate as the last?

What does removing Iraq from the order do in the grand scheme of things, except making it harder for them to argue that this is stopping terrorism?

EDIT: Just read that the ban doesn't favour any religious group so I guess that would make it more constitutional.
 
Last edited:
Raoul said:
Yes, and it will be big news once it sloshes around social media in the next hour or so. The networks will pick up on it in due course.
Click to expand...

Oh my fcuking God.

This could be a Rosa Parks moment. (unless its a piece of fake news!)
 
CNN and the like haven't caught wind of this yet. Once they do, and assuming its legit, then it will cover the news. Drumpf will get roasted for this.
 
Sigma said:
tbh, we're experiencing issues of the Montgomery bus boycott scale every day
Click to expand...

Raoul said:
CNN and the like haven't caught wind of this yet. Once they do, and assuming its legit, then it will cover the news. Drumpf will get roasted for this.
Click to expand...

Of course you are. I understand that.

But I think If this Khizr Khan/Canada story is true, it will be easy for 'the resistance' to galvanise a huge and prolonged protest. It touches upon many current hotspots: Racism, Islamaphobia, Gold Star family and the army, immigration ban to name but a few.

For example, military voted 60% in favour of Trump... I'm sure many of those will be vehemently against this treatment of a Gold Star parent?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.