President Trump did not institute a “Muslim ban.” He instituted a temporary travel ban on people from 7 countries in the Middle East, preventing all citizens of seven predominantly Muslim nations from entering the US for 90 days. Who identified these countries as countries to be concerned about? The Obama administration in 2016. Were these countries chosen because they are predominantly Muslim? No, these are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror.
President Trump also halted US refugee entry into the US for 120 days, and he is not the first president to do this. President Obama banned Iraqi refugees from coming into the US in 2011 for 6 months. If we are going to have a national conversation about whether or not we should ban refugees from coming into our country temporarily, let’s have that honest conversation, but let’s do so with facts on the table, and not let our contempt for the past or present occupant of the White House muddy the argument.
No legal US green card holders have been denied entry into the US and airlines have informed travelers that permanent green card holders can travel to the US, according to a senior Department of Homeland Security official. They do now have to go through an additional screening process. From what I can tell, it’s likely that green card holders being detained at airports was due to this additional screening or confusion over the executive order.
Which brings me to my last observation. It seems that based on the chaos of the last 48 hours, this executive order may have poorly implemented or communicated to US Customs Agents, or both.
These certainly aren’t all the pertinent facts – I tried to hit the highlights. Just about everything I learned was from the two CNN articles below (I tried to err on the side of getting my information from sources not friendly to the Trump administration, and I think CNN safely qualifies).
How Trump's travel ban affects green card holders and dual citizens
Trump defends executive order concerning extreme vetting
If you have anything to add, or if I got any facts wrong,
please let me know. I'm looking to understand what's true, not criticize or defend anybody yet (OK, I will try to defend what's true).
Here are a couple of other sources of info you can take a look at well (thanks Mark Renner!).
If you find something on any of these pages that's factually incorrect, let talk about those facts. But please, let's not dismiss facts simply because they might come from a source we don't like. That doesn't do anybody any good.
Nice insight... first thing I am going to tackle is the seven countries and Obama. I looked over (holy shit, a dry read) the H.R.158 - Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 from which the countries were chosen from... I only see Iraq and Syria listed in writing, although I would love someone else to check and even explain it, as it was quite confusing. In addition, it appears to me (and please check me on this... did I mention that it was confusing?) that the whole act was geared toward individuals from those countries... Not the whole country. Here is the link I found: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/158/text
ReplyDeleteI did find this on the Wikipedia page about the Executive Order under the background tab (so take it for what it's worth...
DeleteAs part of a $1.1 trillion spending bill, the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 was signed into law by President Obama as the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016. The bill listed Iraq, Iran, Sudan and Syria as countries requiring extra scrutiny for travel. The following year, the restrictions expanded to include Libya, Somalia and Yemen. The bill did not ban anyone from entering the U.S. but required visitors to apply for a visa. Critics noted that the list of countries seemed arbitrarily chosen, as Saudi Arabia was excluded.[17][18][19]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_%22Protecting_the_Nation_from_Foreign_Terrorist_Entry_into_the_United_States%22
So is your understanding the same as mine then, that the 7 countries in Trump's order that same countries of concern identified by the Obama administration? That's what I'm taking from this.
DeleteLooking at this again, it seems as though the 2015 version applied to people that either have been in one of those countries since March 1, 2011 or are a national of one of those countries (later adopted to all 7 countries), so yes, geared towards individuals BUT if you were an individual who is a national of one of those countries (so in effect it applied to anyone that's a national of the country or who had been there since 2011).
DeleteOn the so-called "Muslim ban"... It should come with no surprise that Trump has said some wild things on his campaign trail... here are a couple:
ReplyDeleteAt a December 2015 rally in Charleston, South Carolina, just a few days after the San Bernardino shooting, Trump told thousands of supporters:
"Donald J. Trump is calling for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on." (CBS http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/wild-donald-trump-quotes/3/)
QUOTE: "I think Islam hates us," Trump told CNN's Anderson Cooper after he was asked whether he thinks Islam is at war with the West. "There's a tremendous hatred. We have to get to the bottom of it. There is an unbelievable hatred of us."
WHEN: Interview aired March 9, 2016.
(Newsday http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/donald-trump-speech-debates-and-campaign-quotes-1.11206532)
I guess I can understand why some would call it a Muslim ban... It did come out of his mouth. In addition, it's easy for him to skirt the issue when it is referred to as a ban from countries that just happen to be predominantly Muslim.
I agree, that he's said some things that would make people think that's what he's doing or wants to do. But the fact remains that at this point in time he has not at this time instituted a "Muslim ban" and to say that he has is simply untrue and inflammatory. Those that call it a "Muslim ban" are not dealing with the reality of the situation. Even if that's what he wants to do, it's not what he's actually done.
DeleteOne last thought... CNN, as well as, the other two sites that you posted (in my opinion) are not reputable or reliable sources of factual information. All seem to lean heavily in one direction or the other. I use the following rubric for my research:
ReplyDeletehttp://m.imgur.com/gallery/iPLkz
I looked at the rubric and it's pretty interesting - not sure I agree with everything but I'm willing to try it out for a while. My gut says that the NY Times does not have "minimal bias" but I don't read it enough to give a solid opinion. I'm not as concerned about the source of facts as I am concerned about whether the facts check out (a biased source can report facts accurately). It's always good to check multiple sources.
DeleteIn your research, have you come across anything reported by any of those 3 sites that is incorrect or false?
One last, last thought... Thank you for putting your thoughts out there! We all know that I am no fan of our current president. This last week, I have been sadden more times that not. My focus is on the Syrian people and those who have been displaced by a war that is not their own. To close our doors, for even four months, on each person or families who have waited years to start a new life is heart breaking. The vetting process of refugees is already quite rigorous in the US... I am not sure what Trump can do to improve it, if that is his intentions (of which I don't trust).
ReplyDeleteVetting process: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/29/us/refugee-vetting-process.html?_r=0
Yeah, for sure. I'm glad to have some of these conversations and dig into this stuff a little. Truthfully, I probably wouldn't be paying as much attention if Hillary had won.
DeleteI wouldn't call myself a Trump fan either (nor was I a Hillary fan). I'm trying pretty hard to take a neutral stance on Trump and politics in general these days. I don't feel the need to stick up for any party or politician. I really want to try to be as objective as I can. If Trump is doing something I think is wrong or is not a good move, I would have no problem saying so. But I'm also going to (try to) not jump on the bandwagon to condemn him until I gather facts, which is what I'm trying to do in this post.
I think the topic of how we should handle refugees is a little off topic to this post, but I'd be happy to discuss offline (or maybe I'll write a future post about it).
I always learn something from our chats Mel, and I end up thinking about things in ways I hadn't previously - thank you for that!