JayJayH

27 minutes ago, bcking said:

Sorry that is a horrible analogy.

 

There is no sports analogy that works. It would be like a game where instead of the total number of points deciding the winner, the "spread" of points throughout the game is the deciding factor. So getting 2 points in all four quarters (total of 8) would beat a team who got 16 in the 4th.

 

If anything the Superbowl analogy then would support Clinton winning, not Trump. Since the Patriots won by making most of their points in one small place (4th quarter, think of it like NYC/California and other large population areas).

I disagree. You're reading the analogy wrong. The point of the analogy isn't the number of points or the spread. The point is, you can't assume the same outcome if you play by different rules.

I'm by no means arguing that Trump has a mandate. He doesn't. He's the least popular president to take office in U.S. history, despite his own claims that these polls are "rigged." Which stems from not understanding basic statistics. Most election polls were spot on - Except in PA, MI and WI. 45 out of 50 states were predicted within the margin of error.

But the popular vote argument is hypothetical.

If it was a pure popular vote election and I was the Trump campaign, I wouldn't have spent considerable resources on Wisconsin and Michigan. I would have campaigned more in Upstate New York. I would have campaigned more in inland California. I would have spent resources on massive get out the vote campaigns in rural Illinois. Point being, the popular vote argument assumes a similar outcome given completely different circumstances. There is no way of knowing what the outcome of the election would have been if it was a pure popular vote election, or if winning the popular vote had a certain impact on electoral votes.

How many California Republicans stayed home because "California is blue anyway?"

How many Texas Democrats stayed home because "Texas is red anyway?"

How many more Utah Republicans would have voted for Evan McMullin if Utah's 6 electoral college votes were not an issue?

How many Clinton voters in Ohio would have voted for Jill Stein had Ohio not been a swing state?

How many Trump voters in Pennsylvania would have voted for Gary Johnson had Pennsylvania not been a swing state?

When you play a game, you strategize according to the end goal.

The Cavs won the NBA playoffs because they won 4 out of 7 games, despite Golden State having more rebounds. If the goal was to have the most rebounds, the game would have been played differently from both sides, and the outcome would have been hypothetical at best.

3 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

actually, you said 'individual's religion'. pretty specific to the individual.

 

i dont think you're a bigot, i just find your ideas about liberalism reactionary and lacking.

 

not to be a stickler, you said it worried you. at this point in the game i think our current potus lack of diversity surrounding him is much more problematic and speaks to the larger picture we're dealing with.

An individual's political ideology.

An individual's religion.

Not the actual individual.

I know some people who don't believe in evolution. I think that's a pretty wacky concept that should be scrutinized to the fullest. They're wonderful people though, and I don't harass them individually.

The GOP has been whiter than the Dems since 1964. Trump's administration is whiter than the Bush administration, but roughly on par with the Reagan administration.

I still scratch my head at why he didn't nominate Omarosa Manigault or Katrina Pierson as press secretary though.

But hey. At least Ben Carson is HUD secretary.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Just now, smilesammich said:

no, it's not. football has absolutely nothing to do with voting for potus. hilarious you're trying to use football to explain the election.

I beg to differ.

Football and general elections both have an end goal and a clear definition of how to "win."

In football, you have to have the most points. In a general election, you have to have the most electoral votes.

You plan and strategize by those rules. If you smash your opponent in number of tacles and yards ran, that still doesn't help you if your opponent focused their entire game on getting more touchdowns than you did.

Likewise, if you rack up huge margins in California, New York and Illinois, that still doesn't help you if your opponent focused their entire game on beating you in Florida and the Midwest.

8 hours ago, CaliCat said:

 

Most of the country isn't. He lost the popular vote. He doesn't have a mandate.

Eh.......

Trump was far from my first pick either. But the popular vote argument is kind of like saying the Falcons won because they played better 3/4 of the game.

If leading by 3/4 of the game were the established rules, then the Patriots would have  strategized differently. Likewise, if winning the popular vote was the established rule, I doubt the Trump campaign would have strategized the way they did. I'm not saying Trump would have won. But the notion that Clinton "really" won is purely hypothetical.

22 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

you were talking about scrutinizing an individual's religion. not scrutinizing a religion. there's a yuge difference. 

Which is why I say 'Islam', never individual Muslims. Or Judaism, never individual Jews. Or Christianity, never individual Christians.

Actually, call me a bigot, but scientologists may be an exception.

15 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

seriously, you worry about that? ginsburg must have terrified you with her all female scotus comments.

 

Not so much worry. But I do find it funny that HuffPost's 'diversity picture' of its editorial board is less diverse than the board of the National Rifle Association.

9 hours ago, verneforchat said:

Why? Was she yelling in a classroom? 

I dont expect my professor to be a professor 24/7.

 

This is assuming this person is a professor. 

Just to elaborate..

If we measure diversity in terms of group think (identity politics), meaning strictly by superficial means - skin color, national origin, gender - then we're agreeing that what makes us who we are as individuals is largely superficial - skin color, national origin, gender etc.

I have far more in common with my African-American coworker than I have with some random evangelical white dude in Mississippi. I had far more in common with my Korean-American ex wife than I do with some random activist at Berkeley who happens to share my pigmentation and gender. I have far more in common with my gay neighbor than I do my straight neighbor. Don't get me wrong, I do care about racial diversity. But when skin color and bedroom preference becomes the sole measures society uses to quantify diversity (identity politics), then "judge a man by the content of his character" has absolutely no meaning.

That's why I worry about the extreme liberal bias in important areas like academia. For the same reason I worry about Huffington Post's editorial board being 100% white women.

9 hours ago, verneforchat said:

Why? Was she yelling in a classroom? 

I dont expect my professor to be a professor 24/7.

 

This is assuming this person is a professor. 

My undergraduate English-101 class could have easily been renamed "Bush is an Alcoholic Nazi 101."

I'm not overly concerned what a professor does or say outside of work. I do think society has a reason to be concerned about liberal bias in academia - Not because they're necessarily all wrong. But if, as a society, we truly believe people are judged by character rather than skin color, than we should seek intellectual diversity, not just gender and ethnic diversity. If 9/10 professors consider themselves to be far to the left - How is that any different from 9/10 professors being 60 year old white men?

12 hours ago, smilesammich said:

these 'zones' started more as a way to keep the majority from harassing women, gays and racial minorities, etc. they're not new and colleges haven't suddenly, upon the appearance of millennials, started crafting these rules to appease liberals. lets get that straight first.

 

no, you do not get to scrutinize an individual's gender. and no, you do not get to scrutinize an individual's religion. that is, harassment. not sure why you think that's ok.

 

well first, i think you need to focus on if you're speaking about a non affiliated guest speaker or a student or a professor. then focus on the setting, is it a class? a rally? a paid speaking engagement?

 

seems like you want a black and white response, very cut and dry. that just isn't ever going to happen in a country of 308 million differing opinions. that's why protest is so important, so we have a means to shut people up who are full of it.

 

Yes I do. A religion is a set of ideas. So is a political ideology. No idea is beyond scrutiny. Scrutiny of absolute monarchy is what got us democracy. Scrutiny of religion is what got us the enlightenment. You think secularism exists because 16th century scientists and philosophers cared how catholics felt? Scrutinizing the living daylights out of the church is why people aren't being burned at the stake in the Vatican anymore. Keep it up and perhaps gays and apostates won't have their heads chopped off in Mecca anymore.

On your last point, I agree. I was happy to see millions of people show the new administration that people are watching. 2.5 million people marching. 0 arrests. It was amazing.

25 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

you're always talking about a slippery slope..but when i read you above all i see is you not agreeing with opinions different than yours. how is that a problem, i mean it's a personal problem for you, but how is people/college kids defending their gender, their religion, their personal right to speech a problem?

 

terrible links btw.

24 minutes ago, verneforchat said:

You make a valid point. Regarding the quantifying of hate speech, not the links. Those links are terrible.

 

How do we quantify hate speech.

 

But that is the key thing. We don't need to allow hate speech, we may need to quantify hate speech better to term it as hate speech or not?

But we can all agree that discriminating and inciting hate based on color, religion, nationality and ethnicity is hate speech no matter how its thinly veiled?

Fine, fine, fine lol. They're terrible, I'm out voted.

When colleges start to have "free speech zones", you know there's a problem. This isn't a conservative problem. This is a problem of the far left, intended to shield people deemed by others to be "marginalized."

I fully support anyone's right to defend their gender, religion and their personal right to free speech. I also fully support anyone's right to scrutinize the living daylights out of anyone's religion or gender identity. (If you identify as male on Tuesday, female on Thursday, somewhere in between on Saturday and none of the above on Monday that is).

We can agree that incitement of hatred based on anything does not belong on college campuses. But "incitement of hatred" to some, is quite the contrary to others.

For example, is it "hate" if an art student draws Mohammed for an art project?

Is it "hate" if a professor objects to the idea of cultural appropriation?

Is it "hate" if a speaker argues against Black Lives Matter?

Is it "hate" if a professor objects to the notion of a gender wage gap? 

Where do you draw the line?

22 minutes ago, verneforchat said:

I don't think banning hate speech affects  intellectual diversity. Unless you want hate speech to prominently figure in intellectual diversity.

 

There is a difference in dissent of opinion, criticism; and speech inciting hate based on discrimination. Intellectualism does not increase based on discrimination, but on rational and logical dissent and freedom to criticize.

 

There is no place for hate speech, except in your inner mind dialogue.

13 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

how does hate speech contribute to intellectual diversity?

What is 'hate speech'? How do you quantify it? When the Southern Poverty Law Center lists secular Muslim author Maajid Nawaz as an "anti-Muslim extremist", and female genital mutilation survivor Ayaan Hirsi Ali is disinvited from college campuses for 'hate speech', I'd say we have a problem. When Ben Shapiro (conservative, yes. hater? no) is met with scores of college kids carrying signs saying "hate speech is not free speech" - I'd say we have a problem.

When a Canadian bill (and similar NYC bill) pass to make "mis-gendering" someone a hate crime, I'd say that should serve as a warning for a very dangerous slippery slope.

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/06/03/college-campus-free-speech-thought-police-463536.html

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/301661-this-canadian-prof-defied-sjw-on-gender-pronouns-and-has-a

4 hours ago, bcking said:

Examples please?

 

In case you have forgotten:

 

" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

 

And remember we are talking about LITERAL readings of that sentence only. No interpretations. As you said, it is "under attack" from the left. Please provide examples of where the left has attacked the LITERAL meaning of that sentence.

 

4 hours ago, spookyturtle said:

If they were credible, they wouldn't be profanity laced. 

I would say we have a problem when some 40% of millennials believe in "banning hate speech." Particularly when that mentality makes its way into academia. It's killing intellectual diversity.

I don't think this is a result due to sinister Democrats, so much as it is an unintended consequence of legislation and rulemaking.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/the-glaring-evidence-that-free-speech-is-threatened-on-campus/471825/

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/

What's unfortunate is that many Democrats have largely neglected to face this issue, and/or taken advantage of it.

3 hours ago, yuna628 said:

Why is it scary to you all of a sudden? It always was scary and it's been there for years. The truth is, he's just repeating the things his base has thought about the judicial branch for a very long time. You think he's trying to discredit it? No no... it's already discredited in the eyes of his supporters. He's just saying exactly what they think, validating their views all along. The Constitution and rule of law only matters when it's something they like, when it's the interpretation that's the ''right'' way. The right way being the way that benefits them, without realizing how very quickly the tables could turn. I believe that there is a very good chance that SCOTUS could rule the EO an illegal order - not in full, but in part. And, I believe even more conservative judges would see things that way. There is a real case for argument here on several fronts, and we'll see what happens.

I'm not worried about Donald Trump disagreeing with a particular judge or a particular ruling - He's president now. Putting into question, not the judge or ruling in particular, but the hierarchy of government discredits all of it. The government only works because agencies, elected officials, the military etc. follow the rules set out. For example, DHS and DOS under Kelly and Tillerson followed the court decision. Discrediting that process is a very slippery slope toward system breakdown and Erdogan / Putinesque semi-dictatorship. Particularly if tens of millions of Trump supporters begin to question whether federal agencies should bother to adhere to court orders.

As far as the legality of the EO, I agree. Some provisions are well within the president's power. Some are questionable. There seem to be some goo arguments either way. If it's constitutional, SCOTUS will uphold it.

7 hours ago, eieio said:

I disagree. The problem we have with many judges is that they end up legislating from the bench. Their job is not to change the laws via their ruling, but rather rule according to the laws. This is a big problem and has been for a long time now. Conservatives are well aware of it.  The constitution is not a living breathing document that changes according to the views of judges. This is why trump supreme court pick is so great. He rules based on the constitution….not how he feels.

 

The 2nd amendments only chance of falling will be from a "liberal" supreme court. This also applies to abortion.

 

Your faith in the courts ruling according to the constitution is naive…IMO.

I don't like the thought of an activist judge.

However. Judges are an integral part of checks and balances. They're nominated by presidents, and they're part of a president's legacy. This judge in particular is part of George W's legacy, just like Clarence Thomas is part of George H W's legacy and Sotomayor is part of Obama's legacy.

The bottom line is, part of the glue that holds this country together is respects for institutions, including federal courts. Trump's attitude towards this decision is a very slippery slope. Can you imagine if Bernie Sanders was president and he began tweeting to his millions of millennial followers "this so-called judge.." etc. in reference to a borderline socialist order?

Trump should have made it crystal clear that he respects the judiciary, but disagrees with the decision and plans to appeal. He didn't do that. He Twitter-attacked the judge and asked what "our country is coming to." Trump isn't discrediting one judge here. He's discrediting the entire system that this judge represents. That's dangerous. Very dangerous. Once people lose faith in the U.S. system of government (not individual judges), that is when the glue that holds the country together begins to crack. That's how you effectively end an empire.

Could you imagine if your city banned firearms, and a judge ruled it unconstitutional. And then the mayor said "Stupid, ridiculous judge. All deaths in our city are now to be blamed on this so-called judge."

1 hour ago, Cubana1984 said:

I will tell you something, I never been in that situations before and I don't know nothing about those things. I never need in court and in the jail, I am very confused and lost. I just need advice that's why I am here, to see what other people can tell me. I feel terible and sad, I never knew that my foot will step in the jail and person who I care will be there.

There used to be a policy for Cubans who ended up on U.S. shores with no visa that they could apply for asylum, as the Cuban regime was seen by the U.S. as the deepest, darkest abyss of hell. That changed with the warming up of diplomatic relations with Cuba.

The reason visa holders might be treated differently is because in order to get a tourist visa to begin with, he would have had to convince a consular officer of why he intended to return to Cuba, ties to Cuba etc. Overall, it just makes a claim for asylum weaker. If you apply for a visa, you do so with a plan and with the understanding that you intend to return. If you show up in Key West in a floating refrigerator, you're obviously escaping something.

Asylum isn't something you get because you know someone who got it, and others got it.

Asylum isn't a 'legal' status per se, so much as it is protection against being sent back. So what does he need protection from? That's where an asylum claim starts.

Is there someone in Cuba who wants to kill him? Torture him? Imprison him for no good reason? And if so, are Cuban authorities either implicated and/or completely unable to protect him?

That's where brainstorming an asylum case begins. Then take it to an immigration lawyer.

Which application?

If it's the i-129f petition, then yes.

If it's the K-1 visa, then no.

Seems like a new EO is in the works, this time targeting "public charge" immigrants.

The text itself seems incredibly broad, as it could (or could not) include LPRs whose households received public benefits of any sort - Even retroactively.

The rest looks more like an attempt to enforce current laws (like sponsorship reimbursement).

Thoughts?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/02/02/trump-draft-executive-order-full-of-sound-and-fury-on-immigration-welfare-and-deportation/?utm_term=.94c933b6fd49

Problem is, whether you intended to work or not - The consulate will have a record of you trying to enter the U.S. on a tourist visa, admitting to an intention of working.

This isn't like calling a customer service hotline and saying "No, I spoke to Bob, and he said.." They're not going to call CBP at the airport and ask for the officer in question. All they have to go off of is that you tried to enter the U.S. on a tourist visa. After some questions, you admitted to wanting to work in the U.S. That is not allowed on a tourist visa.

A withdrawal means that in theory, what happened is the CBP told you "you can't work here on that visa" and then you said "ok, then I'll go home."

I'll agree with the earlier poster who said that if you can prove close ties to the Philippines, and reasonable amounts of evidence that:

1. You intend to go back, and

2. You have no intentions of working

Then you could possibly be approved. As in, it's not completely out of the question.

Morocco is Morocco.

Morocco is not Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and/or Yemen.

Iran is not Morocco.

Iraq is not Morocco.

Libya is not Morocco.

Somalia is not Morocco.

Sudan is not Morocco.

Syria is not Morocco.

Yemen is not Morocco.

Morocco is not mentioned in the executive order.

You'll be fine.

2 hours ago, jg121783 said:

I wish judges would stop legislating from the bench. The travel bans are compliant with the law. The president is allowed to block the entry of any group of immigrants if they are deemed a threat to national security. 

I'm not sure.

The President is allowed to block the entry of any immigrant group if deemed a threat to national security. The INA also specifically states that no one can be denied immigration benefits bases strictly on nationality and origin - Which this EO does. I'm not a lawyer, nor does any supreme court ruling exist on this, so my legal input would be speculation, just like anyone else's really.

I would like to see SCOTUS rule on this one actually.

1 hour ago, Suss&Camm said:

"a similar manner" is one way to put it... but not an accurate way... Had other presidents used them to potentially violate the constitution, that too would/could have been challenged. The fact that it wasn't is really all the proof you need that it wasn't in fact "a similar manner".

I'm not sure what part of the constitution this violates. The closest legislation it violates is the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

The constitution isn't an abstract document of what we subjectively feel is right or wrong. It's a written document, and to the best of my knowledge, it does not prevent the POTUS from enabling a temporary moratorium on immigration from specific countries. Please correct me if I'm wrong. 

52 minutes ago, Suss&Camm said:

I'm sorry but that statement is just so general and broad that I'm just gonna have you find out for yourself why that is not correct.

 

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2015/dec/17/why-trumps-muslim-ban-idea-isnt-really-same-jimmy-/

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

The Politifact article is a year and a half old and refers specifically to Trump's then call for a "Muslim ban." The EO itself does not mention "Muslim" anywhere, and 94% of the world's Muslims are exempt.

I'm weary of anyone calling it a "Muslim ban." That might be Bannon's intent, but legally and according to the EO itself, there is nothing "Muslim ban" about it.

19 hours ago, Zoubir2000 said:

Hello VJers!

 

Born and raised in Morocco, I'm now a 55 years male and naturalized US citizen. My fiancee is 24. A 31 years difference! So I'm not going to ask if this is a red flag or not coz I know it is,  lol.

Amal and I met 6 years ago on a dating site. At that time, I was having some marital issues and doing some soul searching (mid-life crisis, I guess). I thought about divorce, but decided to put off that idea and give our marriage another chance... It didn't work!  My relationship with Amal grew stronger. We talked almost every day (Skype, Emails, Whatsapp) during the past 6 years, and despite our age difference, we got closer to one another and yes WE FELL IN LOVE! 2 years ago, I have filed for divorce and my wife and I have been separated since. Divorce was finalized last Dec'16 and now I'm ready to move on and start a new life with Amal. In these 6 years, I've taken 3 trips to Morocco and met Amal in person. I also met her family last year to convey my sincere intentions to enter into a bonafide marriage with their daughter, Amal. We had dinner at their house and even took a few pictures together (as a family that is). Frankly, after reading some of the "not so cheerful" stories about K1, and given the glaringly obvious 31 years age difference, I'm leaning towards doing a CR1. I know it takes longer (which SUCKS) and it may not be a "walk in the park" either, but it may be better than wasting time/money on a process that Casablanca consulate, with its infamous COs, is becoming notorious for shooting it down and freely handing out these seemingly endless APs with or without any good/valid reasons!

 

Your Thoughts Please...

 

Thank you in advance!

I'm not sure the 31 year age difference is quite as big of an issue in your situation. It's a big age difference, sure. But age difference alone doesn't make it a red flag. It depends entirely on customs and what's considered normal in the countries and cultures in question. Consider the following:

You're originally from Morocco. She's from Morocco. I'm no expert on Moroccan customs and norms, but is the 31 year age difference completely unheard of in Moroccan traditions and culture? My guess is, it plays to your benefit that you're male and she's female. Not because the COs are horrible misogynists, but rather, it's more normal for an older man to marry a younger woman than it is vice versa, so it doesn't scream "WARNING" from the get go.

If you can reasonably document what you're writing here, you should be fine. They might raise some eyebrows, but it isn't entirely unheard of in the United States (and I assume Morocco) for an older male to marry a much younger woman. 

29 minutes ago, ccneat said:

The Philippines is a hotbed of muslim terroism. We need to add the Philippines to the list. 

Iraq, Libya, Somalia and Yemen are in civil war, with very limited functioning bureaucracy.

Iran and Sudan are considered "state sponsors of terrorism."

Syria falls under both categories.

The list might not make much sense. But it isn't a random one.

27 minutes ago, ccneat said:

Trump has business dealings in Malaysia, Indonesia and Morocco, just saying

Fine, I'll rephrase.

Quote

Remember that Chad, Mali, Niger, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Gambia, Senegal, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Oman, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, the West Bank, Gaza, Bosnia, Albania etc, etc, are all exempted too.

I'll add Burkina Faso, Western Sahara and Kosovo instead.

29 minutes ago, verneforchat said:

AFAIK the original intent and legal language did include EO as per many news articles. It was a later clarification that mention LPR's are not included, blah blah.

 

Regardless of what the original intention was, it wasn't benign for sure.

 

But this is something to chew on: If it was not specifically clear if the order did include LPRs, why did it need two Judges to issue orders to block deportation?

If it was indeed that ambiguous, would that have needed to issue those orders?

I'd agree that no judge's order would have been needed if the EO was less ambiguous, or if it was unambiguous, it could have needed a judge's order.

I disagree with the EO overall, but I think it made it worse that it was written in such a way that no one had any clue as to how it should be implemented - including the Dept. of Homeland Security whose task it is to implement it.

26 minutes ago, Suss&Camm said:

Okay... so if I put it this way..  What other type of entry is there other than non-immigrant and immigrant.... since anything that is not immigrant falls under non-immigrant...?

It says "entry" which is any time you enter.... and talks about entry for aliens (definition above)..

 

but I'm not gonna discuss it any further either... there's no point

We can argue semantics back and forth.

For purposes of visas, there are two types: "immigrant" and "nonimmigrant."

I'd argue that "immigrant entry" is a person arriving in the United States as an intending immigrant - i.e. arriving on an immigrant visa.

I'd argue that "nonimmigrant entry" is a person arriving in the United States as an intenting nonimmigrant - i.e. arriving on a tourist or student visa.

For purposes of non-visa entries, there are two types: resident or citizen.

Whenever you return to the U.S. with a green card, you passport is stamped "ARC" - Alien Registration Card. You're not admitted as an immigrant or nonimmigrant. You're admitted as a resident, someone who has previously arrived as an intending immigrant.

Again, we can go back and forth debating semantics on this, because there is no clear definition of what "immigrant entry" means, neither in the EO, nor in the Immigration and Nationality Act. It's a little like arguing what "natural born citizen" means in the context of whether Ted Cruz can be president or not.

Whether we agree or disagree, fun discussing with you both

22 minutes ago, bcking said:

I only partially agree. I don't think being able to get "reliable background checks" from US-friend Saudi Arabia had anything to do with it. It was more than Saudi is too strong an ally that we don't want to lose by banning immigration even temporarily.

 

If we could get "reliable background checks" from there, maybe they wouldn't be the number 1 supplier of foreign born terrorists on US soil? They are still the primary supplier, and therefore the primary "problem" if you want to try to stop foreign born domestic terrorism. Reliable background checks don't seem to be working, and this EO does nothing to help that.

 

Where I agree with you is that this is mostly a PR stunt. Completely agree. It's not effective at what it sets out do to, and even what it sets out to do wouldn't really solve our problems even if it was effective.

The ramifications of denying entry to Saudi nationals would be a lot farther reaching, yes. But Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Mauritania, Senegal, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Chad, Mali, Niger, Oman, Djibouti, Albania, Bosnia, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Gaza, the West Bank, Chechnya, Dagestan, Northern Nigeria, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia etc. are other countries and regions not affected. Saudi and Emirati nationals committed acts of terrorism on U.S. soil in 2001. A lot has arguably changed since then, i.e. we now have a Department of Homeland Security and better exchange of intelligence information. Iraq, Libya, Somalia. Syria and Yemen arguably have no stable or functioning state bureaucracy, being that they're in a state of civil war. Iran, Sudan and Syria are deemed to be "state sponsors of terrorism."

While Saudi Arabia accounted for most of the 9-11 hijackers, Tunisia for example has the world's highest per capita population of foreign fighters joining ISIS. But neither Saudi nor Tunisia are in a state of civil war, nor are their governments deemed to be hostile to the U.S.

The list makes sense from a PR perspective. My only question really is why Afghanistan isn't on there. I have a hard time believing the Afghan government functions any better than Iraq or Libya.

15 minutes ago, verneforchat said:

Yea because the EO was halted based on the Judge's order. And alot of LPRs were not allowed to board, as indicated by many news articles and angry tweets.

 

Are you not keeping up with the news?

 

Anyway, I am done with posting replies to you. You are free to believe whatever you want.

Judge Donnelly blocked the deportation of anyone who was already en route to the U.S. and got trapped at U.S. airports - These individuals were specifically affected by the EO. Judge Brinkema further blocked deportation for 7 days of 63 LPRs stranded at Dulles. It was not specifically clear if the order did include LPRs.

We're arguing original intent and legal language of an ambiguously worded executive order, so yes, we're going to go around in circles.

3 minutes ago, verneforchat said:

It is not ambiguous to the CBP or anyone else interpreting it. See the CBP website that has been posted 3 times for you that you have ignored.

 

Your agreement or disagreement is not going to change what is currently happening in the airport.

Directly underneath the screenshot you posted:

So far, how many Lawful Permanent Residents have not been allowed to enter pursuant to the Exception to the Executive Order?