March 6, 2017

"New executive order bans travelers from six Muslim-majority countries applying for visas."

WaPo reports.

22 comments:

David Begley said...

"New Executive Order bans travelers from failed and chaotic countries known to harbor terrorists."

Bay Area Guy said...

Shorter WaPo: How dare you try to prevent radical terrorists -- who happen to be Muslim -- from entering our country?!?

mockturtle said...

On the campaign trail, Trump called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”

IIRC, he qualified the statement with "until we are able to vet them thoroughly". As usual, the WaPo is reporting news that, while not exactly fake, conveys false information.

Michael K said...

Iraq was taken off the order, probably because of Iraqi translators and a few others. I just hope they are vetted well.

There are going to be lots of "squirters" as ISIS is driven from Mosul. Some with European documents.

TreeJoe said...

There are plenty of inaccurate news reports about the temporary travel bans - what is not inaccurate is saying that during the campaign Trump directly, and indirectly through Guiliani, referred to it as a Muslim ban.

The judge who stayed the order referred to it, rightfully so. Trump's biggest roadblock is his own communication - he's doing pretty well as a president besides that. All the controversies thrown against him - thus far - have been weak on substance.

Curious George said...

No muzzies. Not now. Not ever. Unvettable. And any here that aren't already citizens, adios.

Matthew Sablan said...

If they have the full text of the order, why not just report, An order stating "X" was signed [or to get rid of passive voice, Mr. Trump signed an executive order, which reads: "X".]

Amadeus 48 said...

Ahh..WAPO, the ultimate stooge propaganda organ for the Democrats. What are those six Muslim majority countries?
Well, if we're banning Muslims, it probably includes Indonesia, right? And Pakistan? And Egypt and Turkey, right? And Saudi Arabia for sure? Wait...what? Well. what countries are on the list? They don't tell us in the story? They are stupid, lazy, and disgustingly partisan.

roesch/voltaire said...

Well this is more reasonable and of course no muzzles banned from countries where Trump does business- a win for all?

JAORE said...

"The judge who stayed the order referred to it, rightfully so."

Hmmmmm, I'd be interested in hearing what the lawyers think of that position.

In my experience pols say left on day one and right on day two on a regular basis. And today they are recorded on a minute by minute basis (e.g. Senator Claire M who has NEVER met the Russian Ambassador).

Seems like a pretty weak basis for a written order to be judged.

Drago said...

roesch/voltaire: "Well this is more reasonable and of course no muzzles banned from countries where Trump does business- a win for all"

Trump must be a genius to have Jedi-mindtricked the obama administration into identifying those countries!

How do you suppose he did that R/V? Or did you not really think your "clever" aside through far enough?

Well, it appears that the answer to that question is quite clear.

roesch/voltaire said...

Drago given that Trump has repeatedly called for a ban on Muslims his ride on Obama's back is a weak justification for his first EO which was based on the rational of eliminating terrorist and did not seem to fit history since most of the previous terrorist came from countries not on the list, or from children of immigrants who are already here. I am for extreme vetting including countries like Tunisia and Saudi Arabia etc..which is what we are presently doing.

buwaya puti said...

Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Morocco should be on the extreme vetting list.
Algeria too probably. Europe has had plenty of problems with Norafs.

mockturtle said...

But, buway, since we are paying Pakistan a billion plus a year to keep a lid on it [no matter that they hid Osama Bin Laden], we might look foolish putting Pakistan on the list.

Drago said...

roesch/voltaire: "Drago given that Trump has repeatedly called for a ban on Muslims his ride on Obama's back is a weak justification for his first EO which was based on the rational of eliminating terrorist and did not seem to fit history since most of the previous terrorist came from countries not on the list, or from children of immigrants who are already here."

I am sorry that you are too stupid to understand what the obama administration meant when they identified nations with failed governments.

Perhaps you could have one of your many obama supporting friends explain it to you again using small words and perhaps coloring books. You can find some in your safe space.

David said...

14 page order. I'll read it tonight. In the meantime I trust no summaries by the media.

Yancey Ward said...

Let's see if this is also taken back to the same courts for another stay. I predict it will.

The Godfather said...

Let's suppose: A candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination tells cheering crowds that all private ownership of firearms must be banned. She gets the nomination and is elected. When she gets ready to send her proposal to Congress, her legal advisors tell her that a complete ban on firearms would be unconstitutional, and probably not a good idea. Instead, she should propose more effective means to prevent criminals and insane people from buying guns. So that's what she does.

Then the NRA sues to invalidate the new law as an unconstitutional gun ban, because the President said during the campaign that she wanted a gun ban.

I suppose that the same commenters who say that any limitation that Trump proposes on immigration from countries with large Muslim populations is invalid as a "Muslim ban", because Trump said in the campaign that he wanted to ban all Muslim immigration, would agree that limits on gun purchases would be an unconstitutional "gun ban" because they were proposed by a president who said she wanted to ban all guns, right?

David Baker said...

Fine, but does it repeal the individual mandate?

And if not, why not.

n.n said...

So, the majority are unaffected. It's not [class] diversity, which is why the Left is disconcerted.

buwaya said...

Well, this cannibalism stuff is new to me;

https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/2017/03/06/new-isis-command-to-eat-infidels-has-islamic-roots/

Link to a discussion of a book published by Egypt's Al Azhar university, unusually covering the subject -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uat7aPNGdt0

Note that several cases relate to the Muslim conquest of Spain.
Not even the anti-Muslim Spanish narrative included this, that I know of, full as it is of Muslim atrocities and Christian martyrs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs_of_C%C3%B3rdoba
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunilo_and_Alodia
http://catholicsaints.info/mercedarian-martyrs-of-morocco/

There are a tremendous number of these. Most cases are straightforward, torture, rape and beheading, or sometimes boiling or burning.

I suspect that some things were just a bit too disgusting for the monkish chroniclers.

Likewise all the Philippine record of Moro atrocities - murder, mutilation, rape, sale of Christian captives to pagan tribes as human sacrifices (yes, that was a thing) and above all slave-raiding. But not cannibalism.

n.n said...

Cannibalism, specifically clinical cannibalism, is a common practice, particularly in liberal societies with established Pro-Choice quasi-religious scientific mysticism.

In other news, Obama targeted Christians in Eastern European nations for increased scrutiny. Probably refugees from Clinton's foreign-influenced war on Christians. We can therefore infer that he is Christianphobic or simply anti-Christian. Well, he is Pro-Choice. And there is something wrong with that.

That said, judge people by the content of their character (e.g. principled alignment), rather than by the "color of their skin" (e.g. [class] diversity). The latter seems to be a progressive condition.