-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@hydro11 said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
This whole business is just more noise. We are going to have years of this, the left bleat about everything he does and he and his supporters dont give a flying fuck.Obama did outrageous things that the right hated as well.. but guess what? They had to suck it up. He made sure that Muslim Syrians got preferential entry over Syrian Christians. That is bloody outrageous as well? Oh no.. he didn't have the MSM outrage machine to get things all heated up.
This is not a Muslim ban, there is no registry. This is 7 countries being excluded something that the US and other countries have done before.When has it been done before?
2 examples of many.
Iran currently bans Israeli citizens and the US banned Iraqis.I don't think anyone should try to follow the example of an Islamic fundamentalist government.
I have no idea what you are referring to by saying "US banned Iraqis" but if it is this then you are making a false equivalence.
Trump's refugee policy isn't that terrible. He is calling for a 120 day freeze and then he will allow 50,000 refugees per year with extra vetting. I doubt the vetting will be successful but there you go. I think it is a bad policy but not an anti-American one. Banning British MP's from America, splitting families and stopping Asghar Farhadi from going to the Oscars is absolutely an anti-American policy. It also is unlikely to achieve anything.
-
@Donsteppa said in US Politics:
@Frank said in US Politics:
Aaah the hypocrisy.
Aaah the contrived false choice.
That is not contrived.... and Frank was not saying it was a choice. It is hypocrisy and double standards. Obama pretty much single handedly instigated the debacle in Syria. He gets Noble Peace Prize.... Trump stops visitors from unstable or 'antagonistic' countries.. and he is vilified. If you cannot see the double standards in that.. well...
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@Donsteppa said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@canefan said in US Politics:
@NTA Loose. Cannon.
Probably fake news. Who knows these days.
No doubt the current clusterfark will sort itself out eventually. Ultimately the entire point was to send a message and he's done that loud and clear.
What I find interesting is that Obama froze all immigration from Iraq for 6 months. I can't recall that being widely reported or anyone of note actually giving a shit.
Did it affect people with green cards or mainstream international airlines? It probably didn't get a court challenge is my guess tho - which is more symptomatic of the times.
No idea, because it was barely reported.
The thing is it's pretty dishonest to label this a muslim ban when 80 odd percent of Muslims and the vast majority of muslim countries aren't included. Bit of a mouthful, but maybe they should call it "ban on nuthouses (primarily in the Middle East) that have majority muslim populations".
More like 'ban on some countries that may offer nuthouse threats while totally ignoring others'
The worry for me is that Trump and his advisors are instigating policy based on their own feeling rather than being tied to legitimate threat.
By all means place tighter entry requirements on people coming from high risk countries, that's fairly standard immigration behaviour and even results in total bans from time to time either when risk levels get too high or immigration levels from those places create more assessment requirements than the officials can realistically deal with.
I have seen zero link between Trump's order and threat assessment. The leaving out of countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia points strongly toward the threat assessments that do exist being ignored for the purpose of grandstanding.
The exception of higher risk countries that have business interests with Trump provides truckloads of fuel to detractors.
The bypass of the Senate and debate will add to any and all feelings of depowerment in government. Seems poor advice to Trump to get both the media and party members on the offside. It can only lead to people looking and waiting for take-down opportunities. -
@Crucial said in US Politics:
"The worry for me is that Trump and his advisors are instigating policy based on their own feeling rather than being tied to legitimate threat."You worried Trump and co. did it based on feelings - wow!
The list of 7 high risk countries was made by the Obama administration.
Trump is simply implementing it. -
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
Obama pretty much single handedly instigated the debacle in Syria.
That is such great hyperbole it needs a new term... Maybe "Superbole"?
Its your gift for blaming Obama, while ignoring every other region-destabilising US administration since (say) Carter, that is truly breathtaking to observe.
I know, I know - in your world, whataboutery only works when its Obama. Everyone else before him doesn't have anything to answer for.
I'll make sure to give myself a forehead slap for my forgetfulness. Maybe later.
Trump stops visitors from unstable or 'antagonistic' countries..
Excluding Syria
I actually wonder what the logic is there. I mean, Syria is a fucking basket case, so maybe Trump is leaving the door open for refugees. That's pretty cool.
And, as @Crucial says, if he was going after nutbag countries, why not also include other noted basket cases like Egypt, Pakistan, and Indonesia? You know - the places where terrorists are known to thrive and plan the downfall of western society, as per RWNJ Volume 1.
Anyway, there is talk that Trump may put Pakistan on the list, which might disappoint his mate Nawaz.
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@Donsteppa said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@canefan said in US Politics:
@NTA Loose. Cannon.
Probably fake news. Who knows these days.
No doubt the current clusterfark will sort itself out eventually. Ultimately the entire point was to send a message and he's done that loud and clear.
What I find interesting is that Obama froze all immigration from Iraq for 6 months. I can't recall that being widely reported or anyone of note actually giving a shit.
Did it affect people with green cards or mainstream international airlines? It probably didn't get a court challenge is my guess tho - which is more symptomatic of the times.
No idea, because it was barely reported.
The thing is it's pretty dishonest to label this a muslim ban when 80 odd percent of Muslims and the vast majority of muslim countries aren't included. Bit of a mouthful, but maybe they should call it "ban on nuthouses (primarily in the Middle East) that have majority muslim populations".
More like 'ban on some countries that may offer nuthouse threats while totally ignoring others'
The worry for me is that Trump and his advisors are instigating policy based on their own feeling rather than being tied to legitimate threat.
By all means place tighter entry requirements on people coming from high risk countries, that's fairly standard immigration behaviour and even results in total bans from time to time either when risk levels get too high or immigration levels from those places create more assessment requirements than the officials can realistically deal with.
I have seen zero link between Trump's order and threat assessment. The leaving out of countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia points strongly toward the threat assessments that do exist being ignored for the purpose of grandstanding.
The exception of higher risk countries that have business interests with Trump provides truckloads of fuel to detractors.
The bypass of the Senate and debate will add to any and all feelings of depowerment in government. Seems poor advice to Trump to get both the media and party members on the offside. It can only lead to people looking and waiting for take-down opportunities.Read what Frank wrote. Trump was simply copying Obama's threat assessment.
I would agree that Egypt and KSA are two glaring omissions but rule of law (or of military) is much stronger in those countries than the 7 selected so perhaps that's a factor? What were Obama's reasons for excluding them?
Iran seems to have a stable enough system, but being a failed state is not the reason for their inclusion.
-
@NTA said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
Obama pretty much single handedly instigated the debacle in Syria.
That is such great hyperbole it needs a new term... Maybe "Superbole"?
Its your gift for blaming Obama, while ignoring every other region-destabilising US administration since (say) Carter, that is truly breathtaking to observe.
I know, I know - in your world, whataboutery only works when its Obama. Everyone else before him doesn't have anything to answer for.
I'll make sure to give myself a forehead slap for my forgetfulness. Maybe later.
At the risk of being banned again, I'll second this notion - truly staggering that Obama did all that pretty much single handedly
-
-
@Frank said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
"The worry for me is that Trump and his advisors are instigating policy based on their own feeling rather than being tied to legitimate threat."You worried Trump and co. did it based on feelings - wow!
The list of 7 high risk countries was made by the Obama administration.
Trump is simply implementing it.Nope. the list was created under debate in passing "H.R.158 - Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015". There was never an intention that it formed a list of countries for an entry ban.
Homeland Security said 'we need to check some of the people we are letting through without inspection because they have been in hotspots and that mitigates the risk as it has been assessed'. They have never said that the risk level is so high that entry needs to be stopped.
As you know the US (like many other countries) has a Visa waiver program whereby citizens from 38 'friendly' countries are afforded a level of hospitality that makes travel to the US as a tourist (or transit passenger) easier. This is why NZers can apply online for an ESTA and have minimal vetting for US entry.
During the Obama administration changes were made to the ESTA program (on Homeland advice) so that you were meant to declare previous travel to certain countries where ISIS training was rife. This was to try and address, for example, a UK citizen that had been trained in Syria, from entering the US undetected on a UK passport.
When this went through debate in the senate (with support from both side) the list of countries was expanded from just those that were known ISIS training grounds to those on the US list of 'state sponsored terrorism'. That is the now 'seven countries' and the reason why countries like KSA and Pakistan aren't there. The US has not declared them as state sponsors of terrorism.
At the time there was a lot of outcry from dual nationals and even a unilateral statement of concern from the European Union. It hardly went unnoticed for its unfairness, blanket targeting or poor targeting.
However (and this is the big difference) it was also merely a taking away of a favour so that those people would be channeled into a different queue. It made things harder for some legit travellers but ultimately risk assessments at the border were done fairly in most cases.
What the Trump administration has done to avoid further debate in the Senate is to take this existing list of countries (created by both parties), made originally for one purpose and applied it as an exclusion list for political grandstanding.
Citizens of those countries themselves were already not part of a visa waiver program and would have been under strong vetting anyway.
What Trump has added to the mix is to ban (temporarily) all issuance of any visa to nationals of these countries. Effectively he is declaring that if you are a citizen of any of these countries we won't even consider entry. You don't even get to prove that you aren't a threat. There is an automatic assumption of extreme risk.
It's a bit like saying that because blacks perpetrate a proportionately higher level of crime we are going to move from 'checking those that we have good reason to suspect are dodgy' to 'checking those that we know have just been in areas where criminals are prevalent' to 'not allowing any of them on the street at night' -
@gollum said in US Politics:
Have we done Steve Bannon being stepped up to the National Security Council at the same time as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence stepped down? > Cause thats not worrying at all....
I am wondering as to the reasons for this too. But don't understand it.
Did those two "step down" as you say, or were they demoted by Trump? -
No, demoted. They did not step down, I meant they were "stepped down" - ie by Trump.
So the security of the US now relies much more on a former TV Producer
& much less on the top military officer in the US, and one of the top Intelligence heads. -
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@canefan said in US Politics:
@NTA I thought Syria was on the list?
It is on the list.
Ah yes - the list of seven is the 90 day ban. Syria is "indefinite".
-
And I think (?) I'm right in saying not one terrorist attack in the US has been carried out by people from those countries.
As opposed to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, or any of the other counties not on the list but actively exporting & supporting terrorists (but all with Trump investments).
-
@gollum said in US Politics:
And I think (?) I'm right in saying not one terrorist attack in the US has been carried out by people from those countries.
As opposed to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, or any of the other counties not on the list but actively exporting & supporting terrorists (but all with Trump investments).
Not to mention Egypt, UAE and Lebanon, the nationalities of the 9/11 bombers (along with the Saudis)
US Politics