No Q&A? So one way communication?its coming very soon
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
WaPo: Trump bans travelers from six Muslim-majority countries applying for visas
- Thread starter WedgeX
- Start date
- Status
Fancyarcher
Member
Nah! Trump's not smart. He's an absolute idiot.
ginger ninja
Banned
No matter people protest or not, this is going to the courts for a long entrenched fight.
themadcowtipper
Smells faintly of rancid stilton.
I agree. I'm no expert( only play one on GAF).
Future Foundation
Member
He really doesn't. He really, really, really doesn't.
Yea and this one will take longer and it's going to have to be about showing how this ban stops any terrorism.
Very likely based on what?
habithipster
Member
.
themadcowtipper
Smells faintly of rancid stilton.
Someone is, his ability to shift the narrative going outside of conventional media is unheard of.
radios shipping overview
Member
More reactionary bullshit. Hooray!
pessimism
sazzy
Member
based on whats in this EO
Frozenprince
Banned
Lowing the limit on immigration by 60K is going to have very, very wide reaching impacts
Enlightening. I'm convinced.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
To be sardonic
This is banning visa applications from the select countries. Not outright banning travel between those countries. If people already have a visa, they can travel until that well is dried.
sazzy
Member
Good.
A fundamental argument against the original order was that it was based on religious animus. I don't see that argument changing.
Netherscourge
Banned
So what happens to his first EC? Does this one dissolve that one?
Or is that still paused, pending judicial review?
Can that one eventually supersede this one?
Or is that still paused, pending judicial review?
Can that one eventually supersede this one?
themadcowtipper
Smells faintly of rancid stilton.
Also not stopping people who I fought alongside with in 2001 will stop alot of the hate for it.
Was this because some Iraqi collaborators were promised Visas for their service? I know there was some issue with previously-vetted Iraqi field agents being grounded.
Shake Appeal
Member
There is almost no evidence to support the idea that Trump is somehow a public relations mastermind, and lots to suggest he's a narcissistic and willfully stupid old man.
A combination of his supporters and handwringing centrists seem determined to attribute more capacity to him, presumably because it's scarier to realize that the highest office in the land can and has been hijacked by a hapless, raging moron.
LegendofJoe
Member
They don't care about that. They don't want them here because of the color of their skin. The fact that extremism is prevalent in their originating countries is just a convenient excuse. They'd refuse entry to everyone coming from Africa if they could come up with a reason that would fly with the court system.
Could the ACLU sue under the same argument they won with last time? There's no proof that people from these countries are a threat.
Abinash117
Member
A leaked report from the DHS also undermined the argument about national security. Although, they are using the argument that 300 people were subject to counter-terrorism investigations, but they didn't specify where those people were from.
Emerson
May contain jokes =>
I still don't think the religious discrimination is what killed the first one. That decision will come from a very long legal battle. The immediate stay happened because people were being detained and legal residents couldn't return home. This isn't going to end the same way.
SerTapTap
Member
The urgency of the original EO isn't there, but like, the core issue seemed to be there was absolutely no evidence supporting the targeting of the countries plus the fact that it was clearly intended as a muslim ban. Both of those still apply to the revised EO. They reduced the shock and awe aspect but it's no less based in discrimination nor any more based in fact.
KernelPanic
Member
Trump is largely acting on what the people around him advise him to. He's a blunt instrument
Even then he is doing exactly what he said he would do.
Emerson
May contain jokes =>
The core issues haven't yet been tested in court. The prior order was struck down based on the aspects of it that were removed from the second version, and the government stopped fighting.
Fancyarcher
Member
Doesn't make him some planning mastermind, though. He's a puppet for others.
BronsonLee
Member
He entered the President Cheat Code for Unlimited Lives but he's shit at the game so
SerTapTap
Member
Yeah, but it seemed clear they just went with those because they were even easier to prove (but even then they pointed out that it seemed to specifically be a muslim ban). I can still see this getting a restraining order, hope it does.
Soon enough all this idiotic shit will pass the sell by date of the original EO and shitty McOrangefuck will have to admit he never had any kind of actual plan or reason for the 120 days. He just wanted to look like he's being hard on scary brown people.
If Brietbart ran an article about how black jeans are an instrument of feminist oppression of white men he'd sign an EO that jeans can only be blue within a week.
PandaPandaPanda
Member
I don't think there is because correct me if I'm wrong, Congress is supposed to keep the execute branch in check. Party before country is the theme for the Republican party so they're probably not going to do anything.
fredrancour
Member
Well it doesn't seem to have done anything to hide that hatred of muslims is its core motivating factor, so they must think that averting the hatred from current residents and travelers can save them.
But "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" seems like a pretty clear argument for "laws expressing hatred for a particular religion are not permitted."
Why do this? Someone help me understand - from a strategic standpoint.
If the goal is to prevent terrorism (which it isn't), then how the hell does blocking a bunch of countries that haven't sent terrorists our way accomplish that?
If the goal is a thinly veiled plot to prevent Muslim immigration to the US, then why only ban them from obtaining visas for 90 days? What about after that? Is this just a spook tactic to send a message? Aside from showing that Trump is a real asshole, we know this thing is the brainchild of smarter people in his administration, so what the fuck is the point of this thing? What is it supposed to really accomplish after the 90 days are up?
If the goal is to prevent terrorism (which it isn't), then how the hell does blocking a bunch of countries that haven't sent terrorists our way accomplish that?
If the goal is a thinly veiled plot to prevent Muslim immigration to the US, then why only ban them from obtaining visas for 90 days? What about after that? Is this just a spook tactic to send a message? Aside from showing that Trump is a real asshole, we know this thing is the brainchild of smarter people in his administration, so what the fuck is the point of this thing? What is it supposed to really accomplish after the 90 days are up?
GiantEnemyGoomba
Member
I don't see why the courts would change position on this one. The first time around they cited the fact that these countries don't pose anymore of a threat than other places as reason for turning the order down.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
Petty. Racism.
That was due to an addendum that Christians had priority, though.
crimsonheadGCN
Banned
It sounds like Trump is doing the same thing that Bush did when he linked Iraq with Al Queda.
adamantypants
Member
- Status