I happen to not believe that the vetting of “visitors and immigrants” was as impeccable during Obama’s administration as you seem to. We let some people into the country that we would have been better off if we had not, in hindsight.
In your view, why were those people allowed in?
I’m not sure if anyone has said that the vetting was “impeccable”. It seems to me that you are setting up an extreme position that nobody has actually held. Maybe that makes it easier for you to attack this (hyperbolic, non-realistic) position?
Vetting of refugees and other immigrant groups has certainly happened in the past. This is indisputable. Perhaps it could be improved. I think the vast majority would agree that this would likely be a good idea. No, there is no imaginary position that wants immigration by refugees or others to occur “willy-nilly”. This is just a pretend position.
Now, given that it might be a good idea to strengthen the vetting procedures, the question is, what is the best way to go about this? Would the best way to suddenly institute a ban on current visa holders as they are in the air on the way to the USA, without proper notification for local, state, airport, immigration authorities? And only THEN start to figure out what this “Extreme Vetting” might look like?
Hmmmmmmm… that sounds like a poor idea to me. That sounds like it would introduce uncertainty, panic, irritation, etc. and lead one to the conclusion that the ban on current visa holders was not done out of a concern for safety, but rather as a nasty, punative action on the part of a hateful minority.
Gallup poll, different numbers: About Half of Americans Say Trump Moving Too Fast
55% disapprove of the seven-country travel restrictions, 58% disapprove of the Syrian refugee ban, 60% disapprove of the border wall.
As with all polls, I think the trend over time is going to be a lot more meaningful than the raw numbers.
And the result of that isolationist sentiment will be a determined choice not to do business with the US, to divert contracts and products to other countries that are less trouble to deal with, and to reduce dependence on the US…not to mention retaliatory actions against threatened tariffs and bans. Lost jobs, lost trade, lost money in the pockets of those very people who thought it was such a good idea to close themselves off to the rest of the world.
And globalization will march along without even the slightest distraction. Worst case, those companies that Trump tries to hit with tariffs will simply move outside the US to do business. (Not to mention that those tariffs will only be passed on to the consumer anyway.)
But it doesn’t end there. Watch inflation climb and consumer confidence plummet. This butterfly has some YUGE wings.
Stranded at airports was incorrect phrasing, as I mean to include people that went to airports in the origin country, and were denied getting on a plane. I still consider it to be stranded if you have sold your home and are getting ready to move to a new life. I consider it stranded if you are just on vacation visiting your family, and can’t get home.
I had heard a number of around 3500 affected people a few days ago, but I am not finding that cite now… best I can come up with is this, at the moment, which, I think indicates around a thousand, once you add them up, though the article is confusing enough that I am not sure if there is double counting in there.
Now, as far as comparing it to the ACA, that was not implemented by executive order, it was not implemented with no notice to either those effected by it, or those who were to enforce it. While I will agree that the ACA certainly is lacking, and could be improved, it is not in any way a valid comparison to this action.
And not really applicable, the website needed lots of work, but the program continued. The current Muslim ban not only required a rework, but a component of the order crashed and burned.
To be like the current issue the Obamacare website would had been scrapped completely and also an already approved component in place after all legal challenges had passed, like if the states had been told that the Medicare expansion that was voluntary had been scraped for all sates** just by word of mouth.**
Indeed, the authors of the ban did told others that the part about current visa holders is not applicable, right after judges had told them that people have rights so that bit should not had been there in the first place. It has to be pointed out here that it is still not clear if that change just by word of mouth is ok.
And to top it all there is the bit that the ban is supposed to be only temporary.
Who?
I am currently pressing my elected representatives to do just this with regard to our relations with the US. First, look into trade treaties with other countries/regions to reduce our dependence on US trade. Second, to be absolutely tough if the US starts to put tariffs or bans in place. Don’t fold- be strong.
Dylann Roof. If only we’d stopped his ancestors from immigrating, we would have been more safe.
(Slightly more seriously, since the answer is something like “them,” that’s one of those cases where “Whom?” works better than “Who?” See also Alan Ginsberg: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=swwZO3LUm5Q. I apologize for the grammar pedantry, but the Ginsberg link wouldn’t have worked without it. Normally I would never ever do that. ;))
The original Homeland Security sadly failed…
Good. Not only is strength the only thing that the orange-haired orangutan has any chance of understanding, it’s the only way to deal with a bully. Then maybe some of those anti-establishment and isolationist types will get the hint that they screwed up in voting for a strongman without even the slightest taint of scruples in some childish grab at any change no matter how deleterious it’s bound to be.
I gave a couple examples previously, although frankly I can’t remember if it was in this thread or another one at this point. Off the top of my head, the Ohio State University attacker, the pair out of Bowling Green, Kentucky, and - since you broadly specified “visitors and immigrants” - the female from the San Bernardino.
A variety of reasons: refugee, K-1 visa, etc.
Thanks for the grammar and culture lesson.
Well the Iraqis were a very poor oversight but it looks like something was done to address it.
The other examples were impossible to predict and I doubt anything Trump will think of is going to prevent these kinds of attacks.
Which of those people were refugees?
All those except the San Bernadino one were refugees.
That may well end up being true. I certainly don’t have a good specific suggestion for distinguishing which Somalis might decide to run into a crowd of their fellow students and which ones won’t, or which K-1 immigrant might decide to shoot up her husband’s holiday party and which ones won’t. In this case though, Trump has asked them to take the next 90 days to see if they can figure something out. It’ll be interesting to see what they come up with.
Something that nobody has thought of yet? So he’s assigning the same people who haven’t thought of it yet (whatever “it” may prove to be…) to think of it in ninety days.
Well, now, that there is taking action, isn’t it!