Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US

[zh cohen]

She has a right to do the job as she sees fit and she was willing to face the consequences.

She actually has to do the job the way her boss (Trump) tells her to. And she certainly can't decide to not do her job.

I don't know what's so controversial from either POV.

Not controversial, but stupid. I think we can all agree that the reason she did what she did was to make noise and get attention for her cause.

Any bets for how long it will take before she runs for office?

[yuneeq]

She actually has to do the job the way her boss (Trump) tells her to. And she certainly can't decide to not do her job.

Not controversial, but stupid. I think we can all agree that the reason she did what she did was to make noise and get attention for her cause.

Any bets for how long it will take before she runs for office?

If she thinks its immoral even if its constitutional I don't mind if she defies orders and faces the consequences.
Maybe she's an attention seeker but who cares.

[Yehuda57]

She has a right to do the job as she sees fit and she was willing to face the consequences.
She knew she was being replaced shortly so she had nothing to worry about.

I don't know what's so controversial from either POV.

There is a difference between resigning in protest and refusing to do your job.

[gozalim]

There is a difference between resigning in protest and refusing to do your job.

boohoo!
so she technically was wrong for defying, thereby justifying her firing.
she played him, made him fire her instead of quitting. too bad.

[syp5]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/01/obama-refused-91-refugees-sent-back-castros-hell-hole-2-days-inauguration-liberal-media-silent/

double standard is glaring

[JTZ]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/01/obama-refused-91-refugees-sent-back-castros-hell-hole-2-days-inauguration-liberal-media-silent/

double standard is glaring

What am I missing? Mexico did this, no?

[syp5]

"The Mexican government had been granting Cubans 20-day transit visas to make it to the U.S. border."

I believe this is the point... previously they would have been allowed in to the USA....

[JTZ]

"The Mexican government had been granting Cubans 20-day transit visas to make it to the U.S. border."

I believe this is the point... previously they would have been allowed in to the USA....

This was Mexico's decision to deport them. What does this have to do with the US?

[syp5]

"The Mexican government had been granting Cubans 20-day transit visas to make it to the U.S. border.

All 20 Cuban women and 71 men had arrived at Mexico's southern border seeking such transit documents.

But Mexico will apparently no longer automatically issue them, now the policy has changed."

Mexico won't issue the transit docs due to the change in US policy...

[JTZ]

"The Mexican government had been granting Cubans 20-day transit visas to make it to the U.S. border.

All 20 Cuban women and 71 men had arrived at Mexico's southern border seeking such transit documents.

But Mexico will apparently no longer automatically issue them, now the policy has changed."

So Mexico changed there policy. Again what does that have to do with the US?

[elit]

Here's is a post in the EO from Prof. Robert George leading conservative academic

Everybody!

Please read this analysis by Angela Wu Howard of the Trump executive order. Please read every word. It is long, but worth your time and effort.

Angela is a leading international human rights lawyer and activist with whom I have worked at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. I admire her and hold her in the highest esteem. I myself have been planning to write an analysis of the EO, but Angela has saved me the trouble. There is nothing in what she says that I can improve on. I am extremely grateful for her work, and if you take the time to read her analysis you will be grateful too.

There is an enormous amount of confusion about the EO. President Trump bears a lot of responsibility for the confusion and his critics bear some of it. In my opinion, the EO was not necessary and therefore should not have been issued. Angela explains why. A significant part of the reason is that we already have "extreme vetting" of refugees. In this important respect, we are quite unlike many European nations. Of course, most Americans don't know this. I myself only learned it as a result of extensive briefing when I was chairing the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. There is a lot of stuff in our government that is "broken" but our refugee vetting system is not. We needn't, and therefore shouldn't, shut out refugees who are fleeing terrorism in places like Syria and Iraq, even temporarily. Because it wasn't necessary to do it, it was, in my opinion, necessary not to do it.

When I was chairing USCIRF, I called for an increase in the refugee quota. I continue to favor that. Many of my conservative friends don't like it, but I believe that justice as well as compassion requires it. The U.S. is not without responsibility for creating the refugee crisis (or the conditions for it)--though we can debate just which presidents and others bear just what portion of that responsibility. I also favor maintaining the stringency of the vetting system, even if that means we do not reach the quota. That's because I do believe that national security is preeminently important. The other thing I advocated and continue to advocate is prioritization of refugee acceptance based on vulnerability to the worst forms of abuse: murder, rape, torture, enslavement. This is NOT because I want to bias the system in favor of Christians, as some of my more ridiculous critics on the Left have claimed. It is because decency requires it. Yes, Christians will benefit, but so will Yazidis, Shabak, Turkmen, minority Muslims, and even majority Muslims who are targeted by terrorists (such as ISIS) for helping U.S. forces or opposing terrorist entities. Thaese are the people targeted by the evildoers for the worst forms of abuse.

OK.  Here's Angela. (Judy Romea, Lila Rose, Emma Faith)

MY SUMMARY OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER ON TERRORISM, IMMIGRATION, AND REFUGEES.

Monday morning I listened to a Senator from Virginia on NPR saying a bunch of things about the Executive Order that are completely untrue. Aside from being one of our elected legislators, the Senator is also an attorney and there's just no excuse for the misinformation -- it confuses people, confuses the debate, and deprives a legitimate opposition of credibility. There is a lot to criticise about the order and I will discuss some of those things, but it is completely unhelpful for people to be spreading falsehoods. So I'm going to post some thoughts here that address the most common confusions that I have heard over the last few days.
If you're desperate to litmus test my politics on this, it was said best by jurist, philosopher, and conservative Catholic intellectual Prof. Robby George at Princeton: "The way to fight terrorists is not by closing our doors---or hearts---to their victims." But that doesn't actually tell you what I would think of the EO itself.

Here's what I'm going to cover:

1. Basic facts of the EO (I've had a lot of people write me saying, can you please tell me what it actually says, because the media is confusing me; there are other people who have done good summaries, but I'll add mine because it responds to questions that I've gotten directly).

2. Drafting problems: overbreadth, lack of legal and agency consultation, lack of administrative clarity.

3. Is it a Muslim ban?

4. Why isn't Saudi Arabia on the List of Countries if the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia?

5. Did Trump just exempt Muslim majority countries with which he has business ties?

6. Prioritizing religious minorities: Is it justified? Does the EO have an exception only for Christians?

Rules of Engagement:

1) PLEASE DO NOT COMMENT ON THIS POST WITHOUT READING THE ENTIRE POST. Except: If you only care about one of the points go ahead and skip reading the rest and feel free to comment or question that one point that you read.

2) I will be happy to respond to further questions or requests for clarifications, good-will misreadings or oversights, and actual arguments against any point that I make -- go ahead and flat out disagree with my reading, or even tell me that a particular argument makes you feel angry and why.

3) I will not respond to people who raise questions, especially in accusatory form, that have already been addressed.

4) I will delete any ad hominem attacks (attacks on the person instead of the argument, whether directed at me or another commenter), assumptions about whom I voted for (it is amazing to me how many people do that, and usually inaccurately), or uncivil language. I lament as many do the limitations of social media for civil discourse, but I've also seen it done very well and bring people who usually would not cross paths together, so I know it's possible. Let's do that here.

5) I do not know all the answers and although I have litigated immigration, asylum, and refugee cases in the past, this is not primarily what I do, and I have limited time that I have to prioritize. If I don't know the answer I will freely tell you that.

6) Lastly, you may share or copy and paste any of this without asking or even attributing to me on fb ("my friend Angela" or "someone I know" is fine). If you want to use any of it in interviews or other more public fora, do ask.

1. BASIC FACTS:

I suggest that you to read the actual text of the EO for yourself. It's not that long. You can find the text here: https://nytimes.com/…/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.…. But here is what the Executive Order does, in summary:

VETTING PROCEDURES OVERHAUL

a) Orders a fairly comprehensive review of all our immigration and refugee vetting processes; directs agencies to develop "uniform screening" standards across agencies; orders reports back from State, Homeland Security, National Intelligence, etc. every 30 days.

BARS TO VISAS BASED ON SEVEN COUNTRIES OF ORIGIN

b) "uspend(s) entry" into the US for 90 days of all persons from seven Muslim majority countries named by the Obama administration as harboring terrorists (this is the provision people are calling a "Muslim ban"); allows the Secretaries of State and a Homeland Security jointly to make exceptions on a case-by-case basis; orders a review of whether any other countries should be added to or removed from Obama's list.

REFUGEES

c) Suspends refugee processing (for nationals from any country, not just seven) for 120 days; orders that during those 120 days, the refugee vetting process be reexamined; once new procedures are in place, refugee applicants "already in process" may be admitted if the new requirements are satisfied (it seems even within the 120 days).

d) After the 120 day refugee program suspension is over, prioritizes ("to the extent permitted by law") refugee claims based on religious persecution by applicants who are religious minorities in the countries from which they apply. The order does not name any particular religious demographic.

e) Bars refugees from Syria indefinitely (so most likely beyond the 120 days).

f) Secretaries of State and Homeland Security can make exceptions to any refugee bar in the EO on a case-by-case basis, particularly when needed to "conform...to a preexisting international agreement" or "when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship".

OTHER INTERESTING PROVISIONS THAT MOSTLY PEOPLE AREN'T TALKING ABOUT

g) Orders Homeland Security to see whether state and local jurisdictions "may have greater involvement" in placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions.

h) Expedites completion of a biometric entry-exit tracking system.

i) Suspends the Visa Waiver Interview Program, which allowed visitors from certain countries without an interview -- there doesn't seem to be an end date to this suspension. Orders compliance with an in-person interview process already required by a section of the INA. Expands the Consular Fellows Program, so that there will be more consular fellows on the ground "to ensure that non-immigrant visa-interview wait times are not unduly affected".

k) Orders information regarding terrorism related offenses committed by foreign nations in the US be released to the public every six months.

l) Says nothing is to be interpreted to impair or affect authority granted by law to existing agencies. "This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law". That's self-constraining, basically to say this is only enforceable only insofar as it's legal. Obviously what that means is playing out in court right now.

m) This is contained in Section 1 explaining the Purpose of the act, that the US "should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including 'honor' killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation." You might think this is pretty hypocritical if you think that our current government is misogynist, bigoted, abusive, or homophobic, but I found it really interesting that there was this essentially gratuitous language expressing the kinds of people the EO envisions coming to America (basically not those things).

2. DRAFTING PROBLEMS: overbreadth, lack of agency consultation, lack of administrative clarity.

When I read the EO in the first 12 hours, I wasn't sure how much criticism it deserved at this level, because the language of the EO does not itself tell us what enforcement would look like. It is important for any order that makes policy changes to have gone through lots of vetting and agency consultation, and for there to be clear procedures for enforcement that can be communicated to every agency affected, and all the way down to the guy sitting in a booth at JFK border control. But it is now obvious that this just wasn't executed well. And keeping in mind the kind of bureaucracy that already encumbers our immigration, refugee, and asylum systems, there isn't a lot of hope that the most humane interpretations will be taken of the language contained. In the middle of the night after the EO was signed, I heard from a colleague that he had a Coptic Christian Egyptian being held up at Dulles. (His case has since been resolved.) The language of the EO didn't cover him -- Egypt isn't on the EO's list -- but it was obvious that the guy at the airport wasn't sure of it. Most likely, he'd just read that there was a new "Muslim ban" (more on the problems with that term below) and that was enough to cause confusion at the border. That means there's at the very least an enforcement failure. Before anything went into effect, everyone whose job it is to carry out orders should clearly have understood what those orders are and how to execute them clearly. It's also not the first time that an immigration rule change caused confusion -- see a personal example in
point 4 below.

A couple of days later, we have tech companies that have had to put off flying their foreign employees to offices in America; military personnel who have criticized the EO because it has shut out, say, Iraqi pilots who were supposed to train in Arizona; and of course, the refugees in transit who have already lived through unimaginable horrors just to survive and then been through the toughest vetting process in the world but whose futures are suddenly and once again, uncertain. Possibly the administration thought through all these scenarios, but it was obvious that they were improvising when they said in answer to questions coming from the field that green card holders (who are not mentioned in the EO) may not enter and then in fewer than 24 hours reversed course (they may). The administration just didn't think through the implications and address them effectively. Regardless of whether this is simple incompetence or actual ill-will, it's evidence of a leadership failure for which the human fallout is really big.

Refugees are the most highly vetted people in transit in the world already. It's a lot easier for a terrorist to come into our borders using a tourist or student or even worker visa. The EO covers reexamination of all of them, but I am confused as to why the suspension for refugees is 30 days longer than the seven country visa suspension. I also really don't know what we are going to accomplish by reexamining refugee vetting. When I say I don't know, I actually don't know. Maybe there is in fact some failure in current procedures that can and should be addressed. Section 4 on establishing Uniform Screening, for example, suggests that we don't have uniform screening yet across all the different agencies.

Specifically, Section 4 directs the various agencies to implement a "uniform screening standard and procedure, such as in-person interviews; a database of identity documents proffered by applicants, etc." Then it gives the agencies 60 days to submit the first report on progress toward this end. That sounds like a good idea. Did we need a temporary freeze while this review and revision happens, particularly in consideration of the effect on refugees that everyone is justly concerned with? Well, number of terror attacks perpetrated by refugees: zero. Also, of 750,000 refugees the US has accepted since 9/11 apparently 12 have been arrested for suspected terrorist activity -- is it "only" 12 and therefore worth the cost considering our humanitarian obligations or 12 too many? That's a different discussion, but the fact remains that the refugee vetting process is incredibly stringent already. (Regarding risk assessment and making law: you have a greater risk of dying from falling out of your bed than dying from a terror attack. But these kinds of statistics don't always matter to people. Most people think it's less horrifying to die from falling out of your bed than from a terror attack. It's not just a numbers game. But I digress.)

3. IS IT A MUSLIM BAN?

The words "Muslim" or even "Islam" do not appear anywhere in the EO text. But there is damning evidence of discriminatory intent that must colour our reading of the text. For example, Rudy Giuliani publicly stating that Trump told Giuliani that he wanted a "Muslim ban" and asked how to do it legally. (See http://thehill.com/.../316726-giuliani-trump-asked-me-how...) Assuming Giuliani is telling the truth, the best reading of this is that "Muslim ban" was Trump's lazy shorthand for referring to terrorist threats originating from the Muslim majority world. The worst reading is, well, he wants a Muslim ban and cover to do it.

I don't particularly like parroting the term "Muslim ban", for four reasons. First, it further instills fear among Muslims and other minorities. It has broken my heart how the rhetoric of the last two years has made my friends in minority and immigrant communities feel scared and confused. Second, it further emboldens the teeny minority of white nationalists who think they have a right to harass people in the streets or whatever it is that they are doing that is sickening -- "Muslim ban" is not even close to a complete description of what this order does, but it probably makes them feel really good that it does. And it allows Trump to pander to that part of his base. Third, it's kind of a lazy way to talk about the EO. In an era of increasing polarization such that most people don't rub shoulders with anyone who disagrees with them, lazy is particularly dangerous. This all dovetails with my pleas (into the wind) during the election -- can we please stop parroting and spreading the sensationalist soundbites and focus on serious people, candidates, issues? Fourth, it reinforces the narrative among our enemies abroad that America hates Muslims -- and that's a terrorist recruiting tool.

On the other hand, saying "Muslim ban" is accurate -- they were Trump's own words. If I were litigating a case against the EO, I would quote the heck out of it to demonstrate discriminatory intent.

4. WHY ISN'T SAUDI ARABIA ON THE LIST OF COUNTRIES? 9/11 TERRORISTS CAME FROM SAUDI ARABIA?

For this question, the best person to answer would be President Obama. The order seeks "Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern" referred to in an long-standing section of the INA (Immigration and Nationality Act), 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12). In short, that section names seven countries the Obama administration considered at heightened likelihood of harboring terrorists and imposes more stringent US entry requirements on people who had traveled through those countries.

Saudi Arabia was not on this list. Should it have been? Maybe? But it wasn't, and that was an Obama decision. The EO does direct agencies to make recommendations for whom else belongs on the list. So they're revisiting it, but I imagine that for show, Trump wanted to act really quickly, and just deferred to the previous administration's own determinations for the moment.

There is a cruel irony to naming these seven mostly war-torn countries -- it may be that, like Obama, Trump thinks it makes sense that people from those countries deserve heightened scrutiny, but that's also where you'd expect refugees need to escape from the most. So a blanket ban, even a temporary one, seems particularly harsh.

The best (and more thorough) explanation of this that I have come across is and article by Seth Frantzman, a journalist who has been covering war and refugee stories for the last several years and is very sympathetic to the refugee plight, "Obama's Administration Made the Muslim Ban Possible and the Media Won't Tell You": https://sethfrantzman.com/…/obamas-administration-made-the…/ Go read it! Keep reading because this next point is important:

A friend of a friend does point this out: "The Obama administration based their analysis on probabilities that suspected Al-Queda or ISIL extremists would travel BETWEEN one or more of these nations before entering the country. While the 2015 Visa Waiver Program may have been news to Jerusalem-based Seth Frantzman, it was widely panned by right-wing groups as ineffective and discriminatory against Iranians, who at the time were in an intelligence and public relations battle with the U.S." He quotes this 2015 piece: http://thehill.com/…/263661-visa-waiver-program-improvement….

The Obama policy changes are most likely the reason why not that long ago, Pete got held up at Dulles for several hours coming in with a passport stamp from one of these seven countries. They wouldn't tell him why they had him sitting without his cellphone or permission to contact anyone, in a little room by himself, for hours, and let me tell you, he was really mad about it. Looking back I realize that the timing coheres with Obama's expansion of the list. This is speculation, but most likely, border control was trying to figure out what the new rules meant, how stringently they were supposed to grill Pete.

Now, he was just held for a few hours. He wasn't fleeing persecution. He hadn't been through hell as a refugee for several years already only to have a last hurdle at US border control thrown up because of an unexpected change in rules while he was in transit. He's a white man (although he looked pretty dark and scruffy after his weeks-long travels through the Middle East), an American-born citizen, and his wife happens to be a lawyer who has litigated immigration, asylum, and refugee cases. I noticed he was late, and I would have gone into panic mode and done something about it if he'd been any later getting home than he was and I couldn't reach him. My point here is that with all that privilege, he still got swept up in the system. Just imagine a less clear change in immigration policy, not speaking the language, having none of the resources that Pete had. God help the many people who have to deal with this every day and have no hope of a safe, permanent home. But it happens, and it doesn't just happen under our current president. All the more reason why such care should be taken with the enforcement of new directives like this (see Point 2).

5. I have heard people say that THE ONLY MUSLIM-MAJORITY COUNTRIES THAT THE EO DOES NOT NAME ARE COUNTRIES WHERE TRUMP DOES BUSINESS. Short answer: it's very unlikely for anyone from America to do major business in the seven countries listed by the Obama-era state department as being "Countries of Particular Concern" for harboring terrorists. It's not surprising that Trump only does business in Muslim majority countries that are not on the list, are relatively stable, and have functioning governments and judicial systems (like Indonesia, Malaysia, or even Azerbaijan). It's why people like Brian Grim and his http://religiousfreedomandbusiness.org make the argument that an independent judiciary is good for business and looking at human rights is a good litmus test -- if courts adjudicate human rights claims fairly, then foreign investors can probably count on them to adjudicate a potential contract dispute fairly. Most countries in turmoil don't satisfy any of these criteria. The Trump Organization presents a lot of conflict of interest and ethical challenges that are concerning and worth discussing and taking seriously, but this has nothing to do with the EO. Is Trump probably glad that the countries that he has hotels in weren't on the list? Sure. But that's not the same thing as intentionally leaving them off just to protect his businesses. Stop conflating the issues.

6. PRIORITIZING RELIGIOUS MINORITIES. The EO directs agencies, once the ban has been lifted, to prioritize the applications of refugees who are religious minorities in the countries they are feeling from. It does not single out Christians for admission, so if you see a headline saying it does, it's just not true. Religious minorities covered by the EO include Yazidis, who have arguably been the most heavily pursued and persecuted by ISIS, and, say, Rohingya Muslims in countries like Buddhist-majority Burma, which has been severely persecuting the minority Muslims within their borders, and whom the US and the rest of the world has largely ignored. The provision would indeed also include Christians from Muslim-majority countries, who have been disproportionately affected and disproportionately shut out of the US -- Christians comprised 10% of the Syrian population but have composed less than 1% of the Syrian refugees the US has admitted. So this provision is a reversal of the underrepresentation these minorities received under Obama's refugee admittance policies -- and that's a good thing.

Putting aside this practical underrepresentation, here is why as a matter of principle it should be considered just to prioritize religiously persecuted refugees over other war refugees. There's no question that war refugees are suffering greatly, driven from their homes, under constant danger as a result of the war around them. They deserve compassion, protection, shelter. The difference between the two is that religiously persecuted refugees are in the current war(s) being specifically sought out and targeted, hunted, if you will, by ISIS and, in places like Nigeria, by Boko Haram, etc. So there is an objective urgency to their cases, that, as bad as other war refugees have it, does surpass other cases. There also may be the case that some war refugees are being targeted and pursued independent of religious identity (perhaps because of known active resistance to the prevailing regime, etc. -- this is the case, for example, for Iraqi Muslims who have aided the American war effort as pilots or translators). It would be fairly well accepted in the refugee law world that that fact makes their cases for resettlement stronger as well.

7. Notwithstanding the rules of engagement, you don't have to read this point to comment because it's not really about the EO. It's something that I have been thinking throughout the election cycle and the tumultuous first days of this new administration: for better or worse in the long run, Trump is a huge wake-up call. In a culture of "Sex and the City", of the mainstreaming of pornography and the objectification of women, of reality TV, crassness is the king we deserve. In a culture of death, of drone strikes (more during Obama's administration than W's!), of the death penalty, of increasing gun violence, of 90% of potential Downs Syndrome babies aborted, a king who uses life-sapping incendiary language, and disparages the disabled, is the king we deserve. In a time of ad hominem vitriol -- we are so eager to call other people "baby killers" or people who just "don't want to allow women control over their bodies" or who are "pro-birth" and don't give a damn about women and children after birth, instead of read each other's motivations in the best light and then make actual arguments about the merits of a policy -- a king who prefers to live in an echo chamber, and exercises a lazy intellect, would be the king we deserve.

All of the things I'm talking about have been going on for a really long time. We kept consuming ("but this show is so entertaining!") and making excuses ("those people are obviously inhumane and it's fine for me to call them names"). It didn't start in 2016. Even putting culture aside -- up on point #4 I explained that the "Muslim ban" has existed in one form or another for a long time. But we didn't feel the need to do anything about it because our country is so polarized, it only pays to criticize the opposition instead of look in the mirror. What's happening now is a long time coming. We should all have been mad earlier, and maybe, at our own people first. But it's not too late, and I disparage the argument that just because you didn't protest before, or you were wrong about one thing, you have no right to speak up now, or you must be wrong about everything. So go ahead, pay attention, and protest. Just be accurate about what you're protesting.

[gozalim]

Here's is a post in the EO from Prof. Robert George leading conservative academic

TL,DR

[elit]

TL,DR

Great and u could be like the rest of this dumbed down society we live in and just form your opions based on flashy sound bites

[yuneeq]

Great and u could be like the rest of this dumbed down society we live in and just form your opions based on flashy sound bites

There is unlimited amounts of information that we can read but not unlimited time. A TLDR helps people decide if they'd like to read further.

[elit]

There is unlimited amounts of information that we can read but not unlimited time. A TLDR helps people decide if they'd like to read further.

I thought that stands for too long didn't read am i wrong?

[JTZ]

I thought that stands for too long didn't read am i wrong?

Literally translates to: That was too long to read.
Really translates to: I'm too lazy to read the entirety of what you said, but I still want to say something.
 

[TimT]

In short, this Prof. would like to hold the record for longest post on DDF. That's my understanding

[good sam]

In short, this Prof. would like to hold the record for longest post on DDF. That's my understanding

Not even close

[TimT]

Not even close

He'll try again, no doubt

[yuneeq]

I thought that stands for too long didn't read am i wrong?

That's what it literally stands for but many times it's used by the OP to summarize a post.