Still wondering this..

[Been Jammin]

I asked this after the 9th circuit suspended the travel ban. I am still wondering about it. Also wondering why no media/members of Congress are asking the same question. I am seriously wondering if one of you knows the answer. I don't mean to start a thread discussing the merits of the ban, or discussing the actions of the courts in relation to the ban.

Why is the ban necessary in order to "figure out what's going on" (Trump's words)?

If the whole idea is to evaluate the vetting process and see if it needs to be upgraded/improved, why do we have to suspend travel/refugees from 6 countries while the process is evaluated? In other words, if the initial executive order was going to be implemented for 90 days on January 27th (49 days ago), has the Trump administration been evaluating the vetting process for the last 49 days, or do they have to wait to evaluate until entry from those 6 countries has been suspended? If they can't do anything until they get the ban in place, why? Can anyone explain this with a logical response?

Seems like all 3 branches of our government have been/will be wasting a lot of time and energy on something without anyone establishing why it is important.

 

[CowboyPhil]

I agree. He should put a hold (90 days) on all immigration from all countries until we can get a stricter vetting process. Terrorists will not originate from just those 6 countries.

 

[Rdcldad]

I asked this after the 9th circuit suspended the travel ban. I am still wondering about it. Also wondering why no media/members of Congress are asking the same question. I am seriously wondering if one of you knows the answer. I don't mean to start a thread discussing the merits of the ban, or discussing the actions of the courts in relation to the ban.

Why is the ban necessary in order to "figure out what's going on" (Trump's words)?

If the whole idea is to evaluate the vetting process and see if it needs to be upgraded/improved, why do we have to suspend travel/refugees from 6 countries while the process is evaluated? In other words, if the initial executive order was going to be implemented for 90 days on January 27th (49 days ago), has the Trump administration been evaluating the vetting process for the last 49 days, or do they have to wait to evaluate until entry from those 6 countries has been suspended? If they can't do anything until they get the ban in place, why? Can anyone explain this with a logical response?

Seems like all 3 branches of our government have been/will be wasting a lot of time and energy on something without anyone establishing why it is important.

you are asking for answers and using adjectives like logic then interjecting waste as it pertains to time and energy

this isn't about a guy running a vet practice to help people with their animals and feed his family

it's human nature combined with power and group think

it's the federal government and government in general been

i can have you put a dozen stitches in my arm for a hundred dollar bill or i can go to the er and pay 1500

i appreciate we are here to discuss politics but trying to put logic and sensibility to it can weigh a guy down

 

[NZ Poke]

Considering immigrants use exponentially more welfare / government services (per capita) than Americans, why do we need more low-skilled immigrants? (Other than cheap labor and votes for Democrat politicians)

Unless immigrants can add specialist skills to our society, we don't need any more.

 

[NZ Poke]

It's f*cked up that Americans in Flint haven't been able to drink the water for a year, yet Democrats are giving taxpayer resources to non-taxpaying illegals in sanctuary cities.

 

[hollywood]

NZ Poke, just because someone can create pretty, colorful graphs does not mean the info contained in it is correct.

Why does the guy not supply a single solitary source for his info? I'm not saying that the guy is right or wrong, but he should at a minimum provide some identification of his source/data.

You do know that "illegals" are NOT eligible for food stamps, medicaid/medicare, and most other federal benefits. About the only exception is for emergency medical care.

 

[MegaPoke]

I asked this after the 9th circuit suspended the travel ban. I am still wondering about it. Also wondering why no media/members of Congress are asking the same question. I am seriously wondering if one of you knows the answer. I don't mean to start a thread discussing the merits of the ban, or discussing the actions of the courts in relation to the ban.

Why is the ban necessary in order to "figure out what's going on" (Trump's words)?

If the whole idea is to evaluate the vetting process and see if it needs to be upgraded/improved, why do we have to suspend travel/refugees from 6 countries while the process is evaluated? In other words, if the initial executive order was going to be implemented for 90 days on January 27th (49 days ago), has the Trump administration been evaluating the vetting process for the last 49 days, or do they have to wait to evaluate until entry from those 6 countries has been suspended? If they can't do anything until they get the ban in place, why? Can anyone explain this with a logical response?

Seems like all 3 branches of our government have been/will be wasting a lot of time and energy on something without anyone establishing why it is important.

I have no idea functionally if it's a necessary thing or not - but the European example of importing refugees by the truckload is not working out very well.

One thing about these specific 6 countries is that as I understand it - they are suspected to be the likely nations where surviving ISIS fighters will scatter to once their current accommodations are incinerated. Can't remember the source for that, but I believe that's why these specific countries rather than say, Saudi Arabia are listed.

 

[07pilt]

NZ Poke, just because someone can create pretty, colorful graphs does not mean the info contained in it is correct.

Why does the guy not supply a single solitary source for his info? I'm not saying that the guy is right or wrong, but he should at a minimum provide some identification of his source/data.

You do know that "illegals" are NOT eligible for food stamps, medicaid/medicare, and most other federal benefits. About the only exception is for emergency medical care.

Google SIPP

 

[Been Jammin]

I have no idea functionally if it's a necessary thing or not - but the European example of importing refugees by the truckload is not working out very well.

One thing about these specific 6 countries is that as I understand it - they are suspected to be the likely nations where surviving ISIS fighters will scatter to once their current accommodations are incinerated. Can't remember the source for that, but I believe that's why these specific countries rather than say, Saudi Arabia are listed.

That does not answer my question. I am looking for some kind of answer to the questions....why does travel have to come to a stop for 90 days? What is going to happen during that 90 day period, that could not have started 49 days ago?

You, obviously, believe that those 6 countries pose a threat to our security. That may well be true, for the reasons you stated. If so, what is the solution to the problem? Eliminate travel, from those countries, forever? I don't think that is going to happen, and doubt that you think it will. So, where does that leave us? It leaves us with the idea of upgrading the vetting procedures. If that is the ultimate goal, then let's get started on that process. Give me a good reason why the process (evaluating the vetting procedures and making needed changes) can not start until we have travel stopped for a 90 day period. Stop wasting time with executive orders and court battles, and put your energy into putting the current vetting procedures under a microscope and determining what changes (if any) are indicated.

 

[HighStickHarry]

this new judge said it was a ban based on religion. In an eo where 90% of that religion is not banned. You have got to love law school.

 

[MegaPoke]

why does travel have to come to a stop for 90 days? What is going to happen during that 90 day period, that could not have started 49 days ago?

you, obviously, believe that those 6 countries pose a threat to our security.

That may well be true, for the reasons you stated. If so, what is the solution to the problem? Eliminate travel, from those countries, forever?

Give me a good reason why the process (evaluating the vetting procedures and making needed changes) can not start until we have travel stopped for a 90 day period. Stop wasting time with executive orders and court battles, and put your energy into putting the current vetting procedures under a microscope and determining what changes (if any) are indicated.

I'm not an

immigration expert.

So, again...

I don't know. I wish I did.

 

[CowboyJD]

I have no idea functionally if it's a necessary thing or not - but the European example of importing refugees by the truckload is not working out very well.

One thing about these specific 6 countries is that as I understand it - they are suspected to be the likely nations where surviving ISIS fighters will scatter to once their current accommodations are incinerated. Can't remember the source for that, but I believe that's why these specific countries rather than say, Saudi Arabia are listed.

Are they expected to scatter and apply for admission within the next 90 days or however long this temporary ban is to be in place?

There are plenty of positions between importing refugees by the truckload and no refugees whatsoever.

During the discussion about the first immigration EO, I suggested that they should just slow roll every single application that comes in or that is in the process of being considered until you actually do/while you figure out what "extreme vetting" actually means. None of these applications have a "shall issue by" deadline where they are issued automatically if not denied.

The administration could review vetting procedures and make changes without issuing another immigrant or refugee visa before doing so without an executive order. The two EOs in question are largely political theatre IMO. He could accomplish his review and changes without a "ban" or "suspension" by simply not approving any more applications at this time.....leaving them in processing or accepting them and not processing them.

 

[HighStickHarry]

Am I the only one for banning all Muslims forever???

 

[Been Jammin]

@MegaPoke

So, you admit that you don't have an answer. Do you think it matters? Is it a good question, in you opinion? It seems like common sense to me, and I can't figure out why no one seems to be asking/wondering.

 

[Been Jammin]

The administration could review vetting procedures and make changes without issuing another immigrant or refugee visa before doing so without an executive order. The two EOs in question are largely political theatre IMO. He could accomplish his review and changes without a "ban" or "suspension" by simply not approving any more applications at this time.....leaving them in processing or accepting them and not processing them.

Exactly. Especially the political theater part. Seems like a huge waste of everyone's energy/time.

 

[CowboyJD]

Exactly. Especially the political theater part. Seems like a huge waste of everyone's energy/time.

Everyone involved....on both sides....is engaging in the political theater.

I believe those now filing court actions realize the administration has authority to just not process them immediately and do their review (thereby accomplishing exactly the same thing as the new EO). I hope the Trump administration realizes they don't really need an EO to slow roll applications.

The first EO suspended/revoked visas already issued along with banning return to the US of green card holders. Yes, I know the Trump officials said they weren't going to do that, but defended those actions as lawful during the first round of challenges. The second EO doesn't do that.

Now it's all about politics, power, and posturing IMO.

 

[Ostatedchi]

Let me put it in terms you can relate to:

The reason for the ban is because Trump is unsure that our current vetting process is effective; thus allowing immigrants with nefarious intent into our country unintentionally in the guise of refugees seeking asylum. Out of an abundance of caution, if you are unable to differentiate those with ill intent from those who are simply seeking a better life, then you halt all immigration until you are sure that the vetting process is effective. Those specific countries are ones that have a fundamental lack of government oversight regarding the legitimacy of their documentation and we are unable to properly discern a person’s true identity with any reasonable assurance they are who they claim.

All analogies break down at some level, but here it goes.
It would be like if you as a vet had a corral of cows and calves from multiple clients. You need to separate the cows from the calves. But, the guy running the gate can’t tell the cows apart from the calves. So do you close the gate while you go figure out what’s going on and prevent the potential problem from getting worse? Or do you just let all the cattle to continue through the gate while you figure it out?

If you didn’t want to have to go back and check and resort the ones you let through again, you’d be prudent and stop the flow and fix the issue instead of allowing it to potentially get worse and worse over time.

 

[Been Jammin]

Let me put it in terms you can relate to:

The reason for the ban is because Trump is unsure that our current vetting process is effective; thus allowing immigrants with nefarious intent into our country unintentionally in the guise of refugees seeking asylum. Out of an abundance of caution, if you are unable to differentiate those with ill intent from those who are simply seeking a better life, then you halt all immigration until you are sure that the vetting process is effective. Those specific countries are ones that have a fundamental lack of government oversight regarding the legitimacy of their documentation and we are unable to properly discern a person’s true identity with any reasonable assurance they are who they claim.

All analogies break down at some level, but here it goes.
It would be like if you as a vet had a corral of cows and calves from multiple clients. You need to separate the cows from the calves. But, the guy running the gate can’t tell the cows apart from the calves. So do you close the gate while you go figure out what’s going on and prevent the potential problem from getting worse? Or do you just let all the cattle to continue through the gate while you figure it out?

If you didn’t want to have to go back and check and resort the ones you let through again, you’d be prudent and stop the flow and fix the issue instead of allowing it to potentially get worse and worse over time.

I understand all of that. But, referring to your analogy...

The problem is the guy running the gate. Replace him with a guy who can tell the difference between cows and calves, and you have fixed your issue. Let's say it is going to take you 90 days of interviews, to find a replacement who can tell the difference, but the current guy is your brother-in-law, and your wife is stonewalling you on firing him (and closing the gate)...do you start trying to find his replacement today, so that you will have him ready to start work on the day that you convince your wife to stay out of your business? Or, do you opt to not start interviewing a new gate-keeper until you can bring your wife over to your line of thinking? Why not start the 90 day interview process today, rather than waiting until your wife is on board with making a change? That way, you are ready to fix your problem sooner.

I'm not arguing against the travel ban. I am asking what precludes Trump et. al. from evaluating the vetting process while the gates are open. They could have started the evaluation 49 days ago. They could have their recommendations on fixes 31 days from now (assuming the process takes 90 days). Instead, they have argued and fought and accomplished nothing at all.

 

[Ostatedchi]

And I'm sure those are happening in parallel.

 

[windriverrange]

Been, the irony will be if one of these peace loving critters from one of those countries does anything (from pulling the wings off of flies and up) while Trump is in office he will then be skewered for not protecting Americans.

The vetting process for anyone is a joke, unless your completely honest then it is a walk across hot coals. jus having fly up to take care of our 10 dogs when we go to Greece, was denied a visa because her dam divorce certificate had expired and she is a relative of my wife. One of the other gals that helps take care of my in-laws in Brazil and works from her house. She wanted to fly up for my step-daughters wedding in August of 2015, she was denied a visa because she didn't meet some bullshit threshold for income and employment.

There is no reason we should be taking in any of these people unless there is a comparable number of seriously persecuted people (you know Christians, Jews, muslim offshoots etc) allowed to come in, especially without a greater vetting process. Right now some of the vetting in these camps is being done by organizations tied to the UN...the UN! Yea they are going to cull out the trouble makers for sure.

 

[NZ Poke]

NZ Poke, just because someone can create pretty, colorful graphs does not mean the info contained in it is correct.

Why does the guy not supply a single solitary source for his info? I'm not saying that the guy is right or wrong, but he should at a minimum provide some identification of his source/data.

You do know that "illegals" are NOT eligible for food stamps, medicaid/medicare, and most other federal benefits. About the only exception is for emergency medical care.

Good points re sources, Hollywood.

However, he provides the sources in the video description.

 

[MegaPoke]

@MegaPoke

So, you admit that you don't have an answer. Do you think it matters? Is it a good question, in you opinion? It seems like common sense to me, and I can't figure out why no one seems to be asking/wondering.

I guess. of course it's a good question. But very little the federal government does has ever been particularly sensible or come without a multitude of strings. Guess I don't understand the uproar here. We've had multiple immigration pauses in our national history and I really don't get the hand wringing over it.

 

[Been Jammin]

And I'm sure those are happening in parallel.

Then why wasn't the revised Executive Order for 40 days, instead of 90 days? All evidence suggests that 90 days of stoppage is necessary before the vetting process can be evaluated effectively. I am asking why that is the case. What changes, after the ban is implemented, that affects the ability to evaluate the vetting procedures? Anything?

 

[Ostatedchi]

It never said they'd be required to use all the time.

 

[Been Jammin]

It never said they'd be required to use all the time.

Nope.

Still, in theory, they would only need 31 days from today, if they started the process on the day of the initial XO. Certainly not another 90 days from the date of the revised XO, if it was only going to take 90 days originally (and if they actually started the process shortly after Trump took over for Obama).

There appears to be 1 of 2 things going on.

1). For some reason, the process can't be evaluated effectively until travel from 6 particular countries is interrupted.

2). For some reason, the Trump administration is so hung up on pushing through a 90 day Travel Ban, that they can't chew gum and walk at the same time (i.e. start evaluation of the vetting while they continue efforts to push through the ban).

If you can show me some type of quote suggesting that the Trump Administration has started the process of evaluating the current vetting procedures, I will be happy to listen to the argument that the evaluation and attempts at ban implementation are going on in parallel.

 

[GunsOfFrankEaton]

Am I the only one for banning all Muslims forever???

Nope.

Still, in theory, they would only need 31 days from today, if they started the process on the day of the initial XO. Certainly not another 90 days from the date of the revised XO, if it was only going to take 90 days originally (and if they actually started the process shortly after Trump took over for Obama).

There appears to be 1 of 2 things going on.

1). For some reason, the process can't be evaluated effectively until travel from 6 particular countries is interrupted.

2). For some reason, the Trump administration is so hung up on pushing through a 90 day Travel Ban, that they can't chew gum and walk at the same time (i.e. start evaluation of the vetting while they continue efforts to push through the ban).

If you can show me some type of quote suggesting that the Trump Administration has started the process of evaluating the current vetting procedures, I will be happy to listen to the argument that the evaluation and attempts at ban implementation are going on in parallel.

No one really needs to demonstrate to you anything. Presidents have always been able to determine to a huge degree who they will let in and who they will not. The only group with their panties in a wad over this is the American left, and they will eventually have to succumb to the wishes of President Trump on the matter.

 

[Ostatedchi]

Seems like an odd thing to get bent about. Especially after the silence from you about the past administration.

 

[Been Jammin]

Seems like an odd thing to get bent about. Especially after the silence from you about the past administration.

Not bent. Just wondering why no one is asking or answering the question. I'm asking. No one seems to have an answer. I'm seeking information here. This is, in no way, a criticism of the the proposed travel ban, or any kind of support for those that are dragging it through the muck.

 

[Been Jammin]

No one really needs to demonstrate to you anything. Presidents have always been able to determine to a huge degree who they will let in and who they will not. The only group with their panties in a wad over this is the American left, and they will eventually have to succumb to the wishes of President Trump on the matter.

Either your reading comprehension is challenged, or you are looking for an argument that I am not starting.

 

[GunsOfFrankEaton]

Either your reading comprehension is challenged, or you are looking for an argument that I am not starting.

No, and I really wasn't trying to be rude even though I saw afterwards that it read that way. Truthfully, however, I just don't believe that our president and his supporters need to expend the energy explaining his immigration policy when no other president before him has had to do that to any great extent.

 

[NZ Poke]

 

[Been Jammin]

View embedded media

Will that still be true if the next terrorist attack is perpetrated by someone who did not arrive from one of those 6(7) countries?

 

[GunsOfFrankEaton]

Will that still be true if the next terrorist attack is perpetrated by someone who did not arrive from one of those 6(7) countries?

This is funny. We are already talking about the next terrorist attack because we know it is an inevitability. If the next inevitable terrorist attack originates from someone from a country different then those included in the ban, then we need to increase the number of countries in the ban.

 

[NZ Poke]

Will that still be true if the next terrorist attack is perpetrated by someone who did not arrive from one of those 6(7) countries?

Yes.

The ban already has strong majority support.





Ironically (or not), Europeans who experienced a massive influx of Muslim migrants over the last few years are overwhelmingly in favor of an outright Muslim ban. (Far more strict than any ban Trump is proposing)




The only Americans who want Muslim migrants are Democrat politicians who want their votes (in exchange for welfare).


Same in Europe. The European people have gotten a taste of living amongst Muslims over the last few years and decided they prefer the old Europe.


Who would have ever thought that importing millions of unskilled, culturally incompatible mysogynists that reject free speech might end up sucking?! Haha

 

[Been Jammin]

Can we get back to my original questions now?

Is the Trump administration evaluating the vetting process, or are they too hung up on step 1 to move on to step 2? Are they endangering all of us by not skipping step 1 (which is being bogged down by the courts) and going straight to step 2? Is step one somehow necessary in order to move on to step 2?

 

[NZ Poke]

 

[NZ Poke]

If only more Germans had taken five minutes to research Islam's views on women's rights, gay rights and free speech.




Because of their failure to do this, they get yet another police state and censorship.

 

[Medic007]

Can we get back to my original questions now?

Is the Trump administration evaluating the vetting process, or are they too hung up on step 1 to move on to step 2? Are they endangering all of us by not skipping step 1 (which is being bogged down by the courts) and going straight to step 2? Is step one somehow necessary in order to move on to step 2?

This won't answer your question, but I'm in favor of indefinite suspension of the refugee program. We shouldn't be spending a single penny on hungry and homeless Syrians until we have no hungry and homeless people in the US of A. It's terrible that we actually spend the money and resources on foreigners while we have thousands of homeless vets on the street.