White House Announces New Muslim Ban

[Blackjack200]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/trump-travel-ban/518694/

- Excludes Iraq from the original list of 7 (Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen remain)
- Does not cancel existing visas.
- For 90 days no new visas will be issued and expired visas will not be renewed.
- Takes effect March 16
- Still clearly a Muslim ban
- 120 day suspension of accepting refugees
- Removes permanent ban of Syrian refugees

Thoughts on this? The Atlantic says it represents a significant defeat for the administration, but I guess we'll see what the administration's talking/Twitter points are. I suppose the administration thinks they can support bans on the six remaining countries.

Is this going to be tougher for the ACLU to fight? You don't have people stranded in airports like you did last time. Who is going to have standing to sue?

 

[PokerGuy]

Muslim ban? So muslims from other countries are banned? Are non-muslims from the list of 6 countries excepted from this so-called ban?

If they needed to make tweaks to get it through the courts, so be it.

 

[OrByte]

I think they shot themselves in the foot when they called for a muslim ban back before the election.

I don't see how these executive orders can then be seen as anything else BUT a muslim ban.

At the very least it should all be challenged in court.

 

[senseamp]

LOL, Iraq is of the list, while Iran is on?

 

[DisarmedDespot]

Pretty much a case of "why the hell didn't you do it this way in the first place?"

I mean, it's still fundamentally a failure since it doesn't include Saudi Arabia (where majority of the 9/11 hijackers were from) or Pakistan (y'know, the place whose intelligence service was hiding bin Laden) and it's still meant to be a Muslim ban (thanks for the confession, Giuliani), but at least it doesn't look as hilariously incompetent as the first one.

 

[MikeMike]

The issue is that someone needs to bring up the case to the courts to get this setup. The outrage is also not there because people have suddenly become numb.

 

[Grooveriding]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/khizr-khan-travel-privileges-toronto-235727

What a disgrace. That stern woman from GOT should follow Trump everywhere he goes, ringing a bell and chanting shame at him.

 

[Blackjack200]

Edited the OP: the new ban retains the 120 day suspension of accepting any refugees, removes the permanent ban of Syrian refugees.

There are all kinds of exceptions that can be made too. It seems obvious to me that the administration is trying to save some kind of symbolic victory here, but the ACLU looks set to challenge it anyway.

 

[Commodus]

This doesn't really address the core problem, which is that it's not really based on evidence (no one from one of the countries on the ban list has committed a terrorist attack on US soil) and still stems from Trump's "Muslim ban" talk from the campaign. It sounds like there's another challenge to the ban in the works, and it may stick just as well as the first one.

I wouldn't want to be in the room with Trump if and when a court blocks this new ban. He'd probably throw a temper tantrum and wonder why it's illegal to fire judges that disagree with him.

 

[Blackjack200]

The issue is that someone needs to bring up the case to the courts to get this setup. The outrage is also not there because people have suddenly become numb.

It's not because people are numb, it's because you don't have children being separated from their parents and families detained at airports.

I think the court challenge will come from someone that has family or an employee in one of the six countries and needs a visa so they can come for a visit or work.

 

[zinfamous]

Muslim ban? So muslims from other countries are banned? Are non-muslims from the list of 6 countries excepted from this so-called ban?

If they needed to make tweaks to get it through the courts, so be it.

ah, this canard again. Don't you ever get tired of re-using the same defeated defense of your puppet?

This is a muslim ban.

 

[fskimospy]

This doesn't really address the core problem, which is that it's not really based on evidence (no one from one of the countries on the ban list has committed a terrorist attack on US soil) and still stems from Trump's "Muslim ban" talk from the campaign. It sounds like there's another challenge to the ban in the works, and it may stick just as well as the first one.

I wouldn't want to be in the room with Trump if and when a court blocks this new ban. He'd probably throw a temper tantrum and wonder why it's illegal to fire judges that disagree with him.

It will be tough for him to get around the fact that he and Giuliani both admitted its purpose is to ban Muslims but it's certainly not as incompetently written as the first one.

 

[Blackjack200]

It will be tough for him to get around the fact that he and Giuliani both admitted its purpose is to ban Muslims but it's certainly not as incompetently written as the first one.

Stephen Miller, in his unparalleled wisdom, already torpedoed the new ban by saying it would basically do the same thing as the old ban.

http://www.salon.com/2017/02/22/ste...-order-on-immigration-ban-is-same-as-the-old/

The nice thing about white supremacists is that they're mostly a bunch of idiots.

 

[Jhhnn]

Donald feeds the post-truth fantasies planted in the heads of his devotees. Color me unsurprised.

Color me equally as unsurprised when it gets shoved up his ass in federal court.

 

[umbrella39]

Not surprising. Trump and his TrumpTards will not be satisfied until the only people allowed in America are pasty WASPs...

 

[sdifox]

If they issued this order originally and kept their mouth shut, it would not have been struck down.

 

[pcgeek11]

Much ado about nothing.

 

[MikeMike]

So... the first one was rushed due to national security risks to current visa holders.

The second one was then delayed, and won't impact any visas held currently and won't stop issuing them for 10 days.

What?

 

[Sea Ray]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/trump-travel-ban/518694/

- Excludes Iraq from the original list of 7 (Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen remain)
- Does not cancel existing visas.
- For 90 days no new visas will be issued and expired visas will not be renewed.
- Takes effect March 16
- Still clearly a Muslim ban
- 120 day suspension of accepting refugees
- Removes permanent ban of Syrian refugees

Thoughts on this? The Atlantic says it represents a significant defeat for the administration, but I guess we'll see what the administration's talking/Twitter points are. I suppose the administration thinks they can support bans on the six remaining countries.

Is this going to be tougher for the ACLU to fight? You don't have people stranded in airports like you did last time. Who is going to have standing to sue?

How in the world is this a defeat for the administration? If it holds up in court then I'd say it's very good for the administration

 

[Sea Ray]

Donald feeds the post-truth fantasies planted in the heads of his devotees. Color me unsurprised.

Color me equally as unsurprised when it gets shoved up his ass in federal court.

So what about this is unconstitutional?

 

[Balt]

My guess is that this one will survive legal challenges. It's reasoning may still be flawed, but its implementation is not as badly planned as the first one. It also doesn't screw over green card holders or people who already had visas, or at least not as badly.

 

[dainthomas]

How in the world is this a defeat for the administration? If it holds up in court then I'd say it's very good for the administration

Instead of worrying whether it's good for the administration, we should be worried about whether it's good for the country.

 

[emperus]

Wait, doesn't the March 16th start date allow terrorists to flood in? lol. Republican talking points.

 

[Thebobo]

It should be shorter as they should of been working on fixing what ever they are going to fix. Seriously what is it they plan to do in the next 120 days to "fix" it ? Nothing I suspect.

 

[Blackjack200]

So what about this is unconstitutional?

The transparent intent of the administration. If you choose not to see through their laughable cover story, let to Stephen Miller tell you directly.