Trump to sign revised executive order travel ban

[TZucchini]

Trump: I never telegraph!

"The order will go into effect on March 16"


What a clown.

[AlphaOut]

The DHS has reported that a travel ban will have no effect on the types of domestic Islamic terrorism we've seen so far: radicalized native-born or long-time citizens. We have a strong vetting process to keep actual current terrorists out, and we can't stop people from choosing to become radicalized. This ban, like the first one, is a boondoggle designed to appeal to the Islamophobes, and will do infinitely more harm than good because you can't divide by zero.

We'll, if the attacks that have happened in Europe from "disguised refugees" is any constellation to why this ban is still on the table, it kind of makes sense.

[ItsRainingMetal]

This is good news, im happy for you guys, keep it up Donald!

[HumbleDuck]

I can't even ...

[Aeula]

Blegh, he's just doing it to shut his supporters up. This bill is worthless until he applies it to every middle eastern country.

[Endus]

How is the ban unconstitutional? These people aren't citizens, and don't have our constitutional rights. I understand we are a "nation of immigrants" and that we should welcome people - but guess what - we do. People can legally migrate here if they want, it happens all the time.

SCOTUS has been clear about this for well over a century. If the Constitution says "citizen", it means citizens only. For instance, the 15th Amendment reads as follows;

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Bold is my emphasis. The right here is restricted solely to citizens; non-citizens have no right to vote.

If the Constitution instead refers to "people" or some other such term, then it applies to everyone within their borders, not just citizens. For instance, the 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[2]

4th Amendment rights are shared by everyone within the USA, citizens and non-citizens alike.

The idea that the Constitution doesn't protect the rights of non-citizens is just blatantly and definitively incorrect.

[Orange Joe]

Wow its true, some people just don't get sarcasm.... Do you really think I believe that these refugees are calling the government and asking for a flight to the U.S.?

I see you are new to these forums. Not to be insulting, but I don't doubt for a second some people truly believe that.


Stick around for awhile. You will see how stupid some people can truly be.

[Kujako]

Blegh, he's just doing it to shut his supporters up. This bill is worthless until he applies it to every middle eastern country.

Even then it would be useless. Not for ISIS, they love it, but useless in terms of stopping domestic terrorism. If anything, it makes it more likely since ISIS/L can use it as a recruiting tool.

[CostinR]

Couple of points:

- ACLU came out right after and said they'd attack it in court. Expected.

- The Order Rollout was done by Tillerson, Sessions and Kelly at the Department of Homeland Security.

- Tillerson in presenting the order used the phrase radical islamist terrorists as opposed to radical islamic terrorists. This is notable as it was indicated that H.R. McMaster, Trump's new national security advisor, was pushing for a moderation on the term.

- The New Order moderates key elements. Like the right of Green Card holders to enter the United States.

[Halyon]

This is hilarious... It's tragicomical. Just...why...

[LaserSharkDFB]

We'll, if the attacks that have happened in Europe from "disguised refugees" is any constellation to why this ban is still on the table, it kind of makes sense.

I think you missed the line about 'strong vetting process'. One of the strongest in the world, in fact. We haven't had that problem here because we check everyone that comes over. Trump repeatedly said that we have 'no' vetting process during the campaign, but that was a lie. And if the vetting process is insufficient, you don't shrug and ban large groups of people, you improve the vetting process.

[Daelak]

Don't border and customs agents get vetted when they apply for the job? I assume you mean racially biased agents, but wouldn't evidence of that kind of thing disqualify an applicant?

There's no evidence that our border and customs agencies are a hotbed of racism.

No, historically when a president gets the additional funding for border and customs agent personnel increase, their vetting system deteriorates due to political expediency (a re-election campaign talking point), which brings in thousands of unqualified, under-trained agents who have a rudimentary grasp of their detainment and questioning protocols, which always leads to unconstitutional actions against innocent people. There's plenty of recent evidence in January of customs and border agents in airports and on the border, that led to innocent people being detained for hours, and not getting access to a lawyer or basic needs like bathrooms and water. This just further empowers border and customs agents to become the sole arbiter of travelers' rights.

[TZucchini]

Remember guys. "Un-vetted" immigration is an imminent national security risk.

That's why Trump waited several weeks to implement a new EO.

And it's why Trump put a two week delay on implementing this new EO.

[Orange Joe]

Remember guys. "Un-vetted" immigration is an imminent national security risk.

That's why Trump waited several weeks to implement a new EO.

And it's why Trump put a two week delay on implementing this new EO.

Good thing that doesn't happen :P

[Gardrenn]

The real question is why do you guys care? Do you have some reason you want people from Somalia or Afghanistan coming into the US? They aren't US or Canadian citizens, let them stay where they are or go somewhere else. The people in this thread hate Trump so much you've become infatuated with the what and how, not the who and why.

[Daelak]

The real question is why do you guys care? Do you have some reason you want people from Somalia or Afghanistan coming into the US? They aren't US or Canadian citizens, let them stay where they are or go somewhere else. The people in this thread hate Trump so much you've become infatuated with the what and how, not the who and why.

What's wrong with people from Somalia or Afghanistan? Do you have some damning indictment of our immigration and vetting process that US and foreign intelligence services don't know about?

[Gardrenn]

SCOTUS has been clear about this for well over a century. If the Constitution says "citizen", it means citizens only. For instance, the 15th Amendment reads as follows;

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Bold is my emphasis. The right here is restricted solely to citizens; non-citizens have no right to vote.

If the Constitution instead refers to "people" or some other such term, then it applies to everyone within their borders, not just citizens. For instance, the 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[2]

4th Amendment rights are shared by everyone within the USA, citizens and non-citizens alike.

The idea that the Constitution doesn't protect the rights of non-citizens is just blatantly and definitively incorrect.

These people aren't WITHIN the US that is the entire point. They don't have protections here because...they've been banned from coming here. The US also has the right to remove any non-citizen it wants. The government simply can't mistreat them or their property until such time that they are removed.

[belleflop]

Now it's the same Muslim ban sans one country? How do they think this is going to go down in the courts? The main issue the courts had with the original EO was that it had no merit when it came to empirical evidence. The judges in both the 9th and appeals ask the WH to show evidence on why this ban was a necessity. They failed to do so. They will fail to do so this time. The data is actually quite clear here. In the last 30 years no immigrant from these banned countries have killed an American in America. It's hard then not to conclude again it's just a straight up Muslim ban.

This just boggles my mind.

[LaserSharkDFB]

The real question is why do you guys care? Do you have some reason you want people from Somalia or Afghanistan coming into the US? They aren't US or Canadian citizens, let them stay where they are or go somewhere else. The people in this thread hate Trump so much you've become infatuated with the what and how, not the who and why.

Because it's the right and humanitarian thing to do. Because people seeking to improve their lives here are to our benefit. Because alloys are stronger than pure metals. Because we have all benefited from immigration one way or another and it's hypocritical and stupid to deny some people entry because of some imaginary threat. And because banning people for no good reason helps the cause of terrorism.

[schwarzkopf]

Enlighten me as to why he isn't allowed to include additional countries?

Because that would require congressional approval, as it did when Obama created the list initially.