It was stated at the outset that the travel ban was a reaction to what we learned from the flow of militants from Iraq during that conflict.
Intel was pointing to fighters streaming out of Syria.
That seems simple to me. Bad guys are on the move, we should be very careful.
Come on.
Try to follow my logic here.
1). Intel points to fighters streaming out of Syria and looking for a landing spot. This increases the risk that they will end up in the USA, which is obviously a scary proposition.
2). Trump wants to nip this potential issue in the bud. He signs the EO banning travel from 7 (6) specific countries for 90 days (120 for Syria). He claims that while the ban is in place, his people will be evaluating the current vetting procedures and then will implement any changes that are needed to protect US citizens.
3). The liberals/Judicial branch step in and the ban gets held up in court and remains in limbo.
4). I assume that you won't argue with any of the above.
5). Logically speaking, the implication is that we should be very worried about those Syrian fighters getting into the country while the ban is held up in court.
6). That means that Trump should have immediately started evaluating the vetting process so that he could make us all safer. How does it make sense to sit back and fight for the ban to be implemented before starting the evaluation? Wouldn't that increase the risk that a terrorist entered the country during the last 100+ days? Remember, the ban was only going to be for 90 days for 5 of the 6 countries.
7). If bad guys are on the move, let's fix shit before they are among us. Why are we wasting our time on trying to push this ban through court at this point? If it never makes it through the court system, are we never going to evaluate the current vetting procedures? Are we never going to make changes to them.
You don't have to agree with me. If you want, we can just move on.
