-
-
@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)
-
Really, you wouldn't for a minute discount the idea that this is just stage one. Stage 2 is to require any citizen born in the US to parents from "Jihad" countries to report to their local police station to be vetted.
Maybe till they are vetted they can be made to wear little gold stars or something. And post vetting have a tattoo...
Except for the Saudis & the Turks, they are awesome as -
http://www.trump.com/real-estate-portfolio/istanbul/trump-towers/
Are both great... and technically the World Trade Centres were competitors.
-
@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).
I actually think this is unintentional. It is not just Trump interests that has meant that Pakistan and KSA are not officially declared as 'Sponsors of State Terrorism'.
Trump either- made the mistake of thinking that the list of countries used for the tightening of Visa Waiver issuance was definitive
- misunderstood the purpose of the original list
- deliberately used the 'list of seven' because he could point its origins to the Obama administration, point that the list was ratified by the Senate and generally deflect criticism.
Probably a combo of the above.
Trump's business interests are in countries where there are still diplomatic ties. That is standard business practice. The inclusion of KSA, for example, to any such blanket assumption of guilt would strain those ties to the point where many businesses would have to pull out. Given the US business investment in KSA I highly doubt any administration would go that far.
-
Yeah, no administration is ever going to ban KSA, but that just underlines the farce of the idea that Trump is a different sort of polititian not in the pocket of lobbiests & cash. He 100% is, he's just incompetent as well.
He's implemented a pointless (if you assume he is trying to keep America safe), maybe even detrimental policy, badley, and yet at the same time toed the line of every other US president. Like the worst of all worlds.
He's full on at war now with the judiciary in the US, his own party become easier to pick off now ahead of the Senate confirmations, he's guarenteed he'll be met by vast crowds protesting in the UK - that visit will be an epic disaster.
And to cap it would you bet there's not a green card holder who has spent 24 hours in cuffs at an airport who isn't thinking "yeah, I should kill some fucker"? You want to radicalise decent law abiding people, this shit is how you do it. And of course its done zero to stop those already radicalised.
In terms of damage done to the US its hard to think of anything this bad.
The (right leaning) Daily Telegraph is reporting sources telling them that senior state department officials & nat. security lawyers were not breifed ahead of the policy.
-
I think he's playing to those that got him there. You should see my Facebook feed, it's fucking hilarious as I have friends from both sides, al going apeshit about it from either side. The country is totally fucked.
So, for example, I get one friend posting:
and another posting:
Basically, my US friends live in different media universes.
-
And, of course this. The independent is reporting that there are more than a million names on a petition against him being able to visit:
One nice thing is that people are actually trying to influence their politicians by making actual contact - either to complain or, express support. If you can believe it, this showed up on my FB from people on both sides - libs to get pressure against and vice versa:
-
I'm actually struggling to find any reason for supporting Trump's action that stands up to scrutiny.
I'd be happy to see some valid reasons pointed out.Searches for comments from Trump supporters only show ignorance eg
"Other Luzerne County residents recounted their positive relationship with the area’s Syrian population and one noted that the mayor of Wilkes-Barre, the county’s largest city, was of Middle Eastern descent. “We grew up with Syrians in our town but they’re the good ones, they’re not the terrorists,” ( http://europe.newsweek.com/trump-voters-back-immigration-ban-549887?rm=eu )Umm, OK, lets put aside the way that sounds a lot like 'some of my best friends are gay but...'. I wish this person could explain where the bad ones are that are affecting the US because they have been let in under more lax rules.
Here's another example "“We need to be safe. We need to feel safe and get control over the terroristic (sic) threats,” “Our president is trying to do that.”
The reason you aren't feeling safe is because you don't understand that there are already measures in place to vet people from high risk countries, even ones to vet people from low risk countries that have set foot in high risk ones. Your ignorance is not a good or valid reason.Or this good one "“What needs to happen is there needs to be legislation to screen out and vet people who are on a watchlist or part of a known terrorist group.”. Guess what matey. There is. The Homeland Security Act is already tough.
The fear-mongering over Refugees is plain insulting to border officials that already spend huge amounts of time and effort into vetting prospective applicants over a long time and have a track record that points to overwhelming success in selecting 'good people'.
So apart from 'but Trump campaigned on this and got voted in', can someone please explain to me why this temporary ban is needed, justifiable or effective?
-
Days until achieving MAJORITY disapproval from @Gallup
Reagan: 727
Bush I: 1336
Clinton: 573
Bush II: 1205
Obama: 936Trump: 8. days.
At some stage he gets so toxic that GOP house & senate candidates have to seperate from him or lose their seats. That usually takes longer than 8 days... Tho' I'm sure there are "alternate" facts & as BSG will post later, polls are always wrong. Always.
-
here's a direct interview quote from Trump
"You're looking at people that come in, in many cases, in some cases with evil intentions. I don't want that," he said. "They're ISIS (Islamic State). They're coming under false pretence. I don't want that."
Many? Some? Who? Name us one, just one! Who are these terrorists that have entered the USA from these countries? I want to know what they have done and where they are.
And he has the gall to talk about 'fake news'? The man spouts bullshit.
US Politics