Jump to content
Forums upgraded! Read more... ×
cn-nadc.net | North Atlantic Defense Coalition
Sign in to follow this  
TankKiller

Trump's seven-nation ban

Recommended Posts

http://gizmodo.com/australian-teen-denied-visa-for-space-camp-in-us-becaus-1791770012

[Yeah, not the greatest news site, but there are plenty more saying the same things.]

It’s been noted that no foreign nationals from the seven countries—Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, and Yemen—have committed acts of terror on US soil since September 11, 2001. In fact, none of the 9-11 attackers were from any of those countries. It has also been noted widely that the predominantly Muslim countries which are excluded from the ban are nations where Donald Trump has business interests.

 

This whole thing is utterly ridiculous. I have several Iranian friends and colleagues here, and they are no different to anyone else I know.

One of my friends, the poor girl, has a long term relationship with an American. She was planning to start her PhD in the US so that she could be with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering when someone would put this up, let the forum activity begin! This is one site that has the text of the executive order, you can find it here.

 

Before I say anything, I do not necessarily agree with the implementation and the handling of this executive order.

 

First of all, I think its pretty convenient that people are forgetting to factor in that ALL 7 of the countries affected by the order all have varying levels of terrorist activity, some of them are state sponsors of terrorism.  In addition some if not most of those said countries have very unstable governments.  

 

This isn't a permanent travel ban, immigration was temporarily halted from those 7 countries in order to review current policies and practices to ensure that terrorists do not fall through the cracks.  In the order itself it says that they are seeking more information from those governments to ensure they have all the facts necessary to make a good decision if they should let a person in or not.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see an application process for exemptions, even though knowing the US it would take a horribly long time to go through and hear back.

 

Internationally accredited scholars, celebrities, and the like shouldn't be banned and should be able to receive an exemption.

 

On the upside, my university has waived application fees for students from these affected countries. Go Canada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obligatory reference to Seven Nation Army as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obligatory reference to Seven Nation Army as well.

lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting poll.

 

I think it would be difficult to find anyone who opposes the idea of reviewing and ensuring that the protocols and practices we have in place for immigration are adequate to stop terrorists from entering the country.  

 

Do I think it is ridiculous for them to attempt to bar people who were previously cleared by the Obama administration? Absolutely.  Do I think it is absurd for them to try to target green card holders? Yes.  The roll-out of this executive order was also unacceptable, the heads of departments learned of it during its official signing or shortly beforehand.  Congress learned about it from the media, the roll out was completely unprofessional and dumb. There are positive and negative aspects as there are with any decision. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is simply counter-productive. You are just giving people in those nations another reason to dislike America... and this time you are targeting those who actually like America and want to go there.

Plus, lots of lovely propaganda ammo for the 'America hates Muslims' campaign, a fairly effective recruitment angle for extremists

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is simply counter-productive. You are just giving people in those nations another reason to dislike America... and this time you are targeting those who actually like America and want to go there.

Plus, lots of lovely propaganda ammo for the 'America hates Muslims' campaign, a fairly effective recruitment angle for extremists

The way it was done this time, yes very counter productive.  

 

Will be interesting to see what the administration does after the ruling in Seattle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not a fan of the action, not just the rollout, but the action itself. With that said, I think Trump was within his right to do it based on the law. I don't see it as a "Muslim Ban" though I do find it troubling that Christian minorities get preferential treatment (though I am not personally sure on the constitutionality of it). I think my personal problem with the Executive Action lies in the fact that the President (any President, not just Trump) has the wide sweeping authority to essentially dictate government policy. One of my current reading interests in Patrick Henry, and he hit the nail on the head with his critique of the Presidency as it is enumerated in the Constitution. His argument is he would rather have a King because kings have defined limits on their powers in a Constitution, but the President seemingly does not. He asserts that the framers assumed benevolence in the Executive Branch, and while it might work well in times of benevolence, when people who are self interested ascend to the office it could get messy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To my mind it has always seemed intended as an uncommon measure to be used either in emergency or when something is necessary but being stymied by Congress.

The problem, as you say, is that it depends upon the wisdom and benevolence of the incumbent...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In a CN context, every time we change our Charter in TTK most people assume government benevolence based on the current gov of the time. Pessimistic old farts like me remind them that this will not always be the case and safeguards need to be in place

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that Christian minorities getting preferential treatment is just wrong, although I also do find it perplexing that very few Christian refugees from the middle east were accepted under the Obama administration.  Religion should not play any factor in accepting refugees to this country other than if they are being persecuted for their religion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that Christian minorities getting preferential treatment is just wrong

...

Religion should not play any factor in accepting refugees to this country other than if they are being persecuted for their religion.


I just quoted those two bits because Christians are being persecuted in the Middle East. Openly being Christian is a good way to end up dead in several countries at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean the whole premise is just dumb, no one from these countries has carried out attacks on the US, the executive order protected nobody from anything. And despite the argument that it is only a tiny minority (which is really a ridiculous slippery slope argument), the reality is that there are people who could not return to their countries of residence from where they were because it would require landing in the USA first, not to mention people with homes, family, jobs and education in America, all punished for no reason whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although it looks like there is no rhyme or reason to Trump's decision, there could be another explanation. It was inevitable that he would clash with the judiciary - he's not the type of person who handles compromise well - and by trying to push through an order which, while pleasing to his core supporters is of minor importance, he can get an idea of how things stand. He presumably realizes that the Republican establishment is less than committed to him, and that could even mean that Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices will refuse to do his bidding.

 

Incidentally, why does the US President get to select replacement Supreme Court justices? It seems incompatible with the separation of the Executive and Judicial branches of government, and results in justices who have been appointed because of their political views, rather than their legal expertise. Surely it would be better if the Supreme Court justices chose the replacement when one of their number retired or died.

 

Edit: Apparently, Trump agrees. Today he said, "Courts seem to be so political and it would be so great for our justice system if they would be able to read a statement and do what's right." :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although it looks like there is no rhyme or reason to Trump's decision, there could be another explanation. It was inevitable that he would clash with the judiciary - he's not the type of person who handles compromise well - and by trying to push through an order which, while pleasing to his core supporters is of minor importance, he can get an idea of how things stand. He presumably realizes that the Republican establishment is less than committed to him, and that could even mean that Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices will refuse to do his bidding.

 

Incidentally, why does the US President get to select replacement Supreme Court justices? It seems incompatible with the separation of the Executive and Judicial branches of government, and results in justices who have been appointed because of their political views, rather than their legal expertise. Surely it would be better if the Supreme Court justices chose the replacement when one of their number retired or died.

 

Edit: Apparently, Trump agrees. Today he said, "Courts seem to be so political and it would be so great for our justice system if they would be able to read a statement and do what's right." :o

 

I agree, and maybe Trump does to, but it wouldn't stop him picking people based off of their political beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Although it looks like there is no rhyme or reason to Trump's decision, there could be another explanation. It was inevitable that he would clash with the judiciary - he's not the type of person who handles compromise well - and by trying to push through an order which, while pleasing to his core supporters is of minor importance, he can get an idea of how things stand. He presumably realizes that the Republican establishment is less than committed to him, and that could even mean that Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices will refuse to do his bidding.

 

Incidentally, why does the US President get to select replacement Supreme Court justices? It seems incompatible with the separation of the Executive and Judicial branches of government, and results in justices who have been appointed because of their political views, rather than their legal expertise. Surely it would be better if the Supreme Court justices chose the replacement when one of their number retired or died.

 

Edit: Apparently, Trump agrees. Today he said, "Courts seem to be so political and it would be so great for our justice system if they would be able to read a statement and do what's right." :o

 

I agree, and maybe Trump does to, but it wouldn't stop him picking people based off of their political beliefs.

 

To be fair, every single president picks people whom share political beliefs with them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although it looks like there is no rhyme or reason to Trump's decision, there could be another explanation. It was inevitable that he would clash with the judiciary - he's not the type of person who handles compromise well - and by trying to push through an order which, while pleasing to his core supporters is of minor importance, he can get an idea of how things stand. He presumably realizes that the Republican establishment is less than committed to him, and that could even mean that Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices will refuse to do his bidding.

 

Incidentally, why does the US President get to select replacement Supreme Court justices? It seems incompatible with the separation of the Executive and Judicial branches of government, and results in justices who have been appointed because of their political views, rather than their legal expertise. Surely it would be better if the Supreme Court justices chose the replacement when one of their number retired or died.

 

Edit: Apparently, Trump agrees. Today he said, "Courts seem to be so political and it would be so great for our justice system if they would be able to read a statement and do what's right." :o

 

The President nominates all federal judges (there's around 900 right now), but the Senate must confirm them all. That gives both branches of government the ability to shape the judicial branch.Because all federal judges (district, appeals and SCOTUS) have lifetime appointments, I personally believe it is the single most powerful power the President has. His/her's policies can be overturned once he leaves office, but those judges can last many years. 

Not all judges adhere to the same ideology as the President that named them. For instance, Republican President Gerald Ford nominated Justice Stevens, who ended up be a staunch liberal. Bush Sr. nominated Justice Souter, who certainly leaned left. Nixon nominated Justice Blackmun, who was one of the most liberal. Reagan nominated Justice O'Connor, who was always considered in the middle as a swing vote. 

Having the justices doing the nominations themselves would leave it all "in house", which would be the opposite of what the separation of the three branches are meant to do. Also, judges are supposed to be non-political, so leaving it up to them would make it more political, with no other branch able to do much at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Going be interesting how the suprem court rules on this. President Trump was in his right to create this excutive order. According to federal code the President can restrict any alien from coming into the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is that SCOTUS will rule that they do not have standing. "Standing" is the right to file a lawsuit because it directly harms you. That would let the ban go ahead. TBH, the government should simply tweak the language on visas and then make that directive. 

Incidentally, the most liberal appeals circuit (9th) always get's overturned. Can you believe they get overturned by SCOTUS 80% of the time? That's just insane. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is that SCOTUS will rule that they do not have standing. "Standing" is the right to file a lawsuit because it directly harms you. That would let the ban go ahead. TBH, the government should simply tweak the language on visas and then make that directive.

Incidentally, the most liberal appeals circuit (9th) always get's overturned. Can you believe they get overturned by SCOTUS 80% of the time? That's just insane.


That's why they had the state of Washington pull the case cause they are apart of the 9th circuit court of appeals. Yeah it's like 60-80% gets overturned by the suprem court. Its crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×