Quote:
Originally Posted by goofyballer
Like, to put this in even simpler terms (and I know you understand this already, which makes me even more incredulous that you argued what you did):
- Obama: People from 38 countries (mostly European & other Western allies) who had traveled to Iraq, Libya, et al needed a visa to enter the US; visa practices for people actually from those countries were not affected by the law
- Trump: okay we're gonna take that same list, previously used for members of visa-free nations (not the listed countries themselves) who had traveled to the listed countries, and use it to just ban everyone from those countries full stop
- Mori****a: Thanks, Obama!
I mean, WTF? If there's something I'm getting majorly wrong about the law please tell me, you strike me as well-read on the subject (which, again, makes me all the more incredulous about your argument), but I read all of the sources you provided and did some additional Googling of my own and I don't see what I'm missing.
I am feeling extremely magnanimous right now, so I will step back and walk you through this despite your initial response.
What you are missing is the intent of the law, which the infamously hard line conservative Diane Feinstein explains as
follows:
Quote:
California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who introduced the Senate's version of the legislation, said new restrictions cut the risk of foreign fighters exploiting the visa program "by requiring individuals who have traveled to high-risk countries to use the traditional visa process." Feinstein's legislation prohibited visa-free travel for those who have traveled to Syria and Iraq. The dual-national provision originated in the House, officials said.
"I strongly believe that restricting use of the visa waiver program based on travel to high-risk countries will help prevent an estimated 5,000 foreign fighters from Europe who have trained in the Middle East from exploiting the program to enter the United States," Feinstein said in a statement.
So the purpose of this law is national security, and the intent of the law is to force such people in the seven countries to obtain a visa, which puts them
directly in control of the executive. The executive has broad powers to deny visas or even reject valid visas if the issue is national security. Case in point, the Obama administration denied several people entry into the US in view of that legislation over national security concerns, even people with valid entry visas as in one famous example that the ACLU litigated for Marjan Vahdat:
https://www.niacaction.org/visastories/
The Obama administration chose to do this on a case by case basis for people who fall under this legislation and for the seven countries that they and Congress selected, and had also suspended processing visa applications and entry of Iraqi refugees before under
similar justification. So yes, Obama and Congress built this and provided the direct precedent for the current ban that Trump is implementing with the executive order, specifically for people who have visited or are foreign nationals of those seven selected countries.
Even though Trump has implemented it as an immediate blanket ban, the executive order also states that:
Quote:
Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked
so in effect, it is the same implementation that Obama and Congress built and only differs with respect to how Syrian refugees are handled (justified under the selected seven countries) and the immediacy of the ban. So yes, if you didn't complain about it then (as the ACLU and NIAC had), then you are either very ignorant of the precedent that Obama set or quite hypocritical for complaining about Trump using the law and powers as intended.
To address the other points:
- Does not apply to
green card holders, which is not a visa but rather confers permanent residence status and is subject to different laws which provide specific guidelines as to the rights of green card holders. Although I expected ICE to screw this point up and leave a talking point for the media to explode on, it looks like no green card holders were denied so the issue is moot.
- If this is truly the so-called Muslim ban that everyone accuses Trump of wanting, then this is an awfully ineffective way of implementing it while pissing away quite a bit of political capital. Instead, he could've waited for Tillerson to take office as Secretary of State, and then one by one brand each of the Muslim majority countries (or hell, just Saudi Arabia given that Mecca is there) as
State Sponsors of Terrorism, and in combination with the aforementioned legislation from Obama and Congress, there would've been **** all that anyone could've done about it, at least not without a long and ugly litigation with the Department of State over the legal justifications provided by the Department of State. There is no way, not with both how W and Obama used the Department of State and with the advisors that currently surround Trump, that Trump does not know this. So no, it is very hard to imagine that Trump is doing this because he truly wants to ban Muslims; that rhetoric was aimed at rallying his base rather than being the intended point.
Last edited by Morishita System; 01-30-2017 at 02:44 AM.