Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One question that has not been answered is, why couldn't the president have ordered a review of the existing procedures and then implemented appropriate changes without ordering this poorly implemented ban which caused so much chaos?
Goodnight, craigiri, and justNancy have already spoken to this earlier in the thread, but I have yet to see an answer.
I believe that Judge Friedland implied this in her question to August Flentje, when she asked how many terrorist acts were committed by travelers from these countries, and his reply was "None, although 20 individuals had been arrested."
One question that has not been answered is, why couldn't the president have ordered a review of the existing procedures and then implemented appropriate changes without ordering this poorly implemented ban which caused so much chaos?
Goodnight, craigiri, and justNancy have already spoken to this earlier in the thread, but I have yet to see an answer.
I believe that Judge Friedland implied this in her question to August Flentje, when she asked how many terrorist acts were committed by travelers from these countries, and his reply was "None, although 20 individuals had been arrested."
Anyone?
I don't know that there is an answer other than to say it was very poorly implemented. Although I didn't vote for him I'm inclined to chalk it up to new job learning curve and HOPEFULLY it won't happen again like that.
I'll be concerned if he doesn't learn from this whole event, we'll see I guess...
One question that has not been answered is, why couldn't the president have ordered a review of the existing procedures and then implemented appropriate changes without ordering this poorly implemented ban which caused so much chaos?
Goodnight, craigiri, and justNancy have already spoken to this earlier in the thread, but I have yet to see an answer.
I believe that Judge Friedland implied this in her question to August Flentje, when she asked how many terrorist acts were committed by travelers from these countries, and his reply was "None, although 20 individuals had been arrested."
Anyone?
There was no chaos, that was a false narrative put out by the msm.
There was 109 out of 350,000 travelers affected by the order when the media labeled this EO as causing "chaos". That's right, 109 people affected constitutes chaos to the msm.
How the order was implemented is irrelevant, the order applies to all equally, therefore it is legal. I know that is an inconvenient fact for those that don't like President Trump, and they are ignoring it, but short of some crazy activist judge ruling, this will be deemed legal.
There was no chaos, that was a false narrative put out by the msm.
There was 109 out of 350,000 travelers affected by the order when the media labeled this EO as causing "chaos". That's right, 109 people affected constitutes chaos to the msm.
How the order was implemented is irrelevant, the order applies to all equally, therefore it is legal. I know that is an inconvenient fact that those that don't like President Trump are ignoring, but short of some crazy activist judge ruling, this will be deemed legal.
I don't know that there is an answer other than to say it was very poorly implemented. Although I didn't vote for him I'm inclined to chalk it up to new job learning curve and HOPEFULLY it won't happen again like that.
I'll be concerned if he doesn't learn from this whole event, we'll see I guess...
One question that has not been answered is, why couldn't the president have ordered a review of the existing procedures and then implemented appropriate changes without ordering this poorly implemented ban which caused so much chaos?
Goodnight, craigiri, and justNancy have already spoken to this earlier in the thread, but I have yet to see an answer.
I believe that Judge Friedland implied this in her question to August Flentje, when she asked how many terrorist acts were committed by travelers from these countries, and his reply was "None, although 20 individuals had been arrested."
Anyone?
I flatly do not understand what the specific threat was that deserved this type of radical action, if Trump could add some details I would understand. All he has offered was generalities, why he couldn't have just delayed his decision until he had some well thought out change to the current system. Kelly by the way should have been part of the proposed changes to the current system.
There was no chaos, that was a false narrative put out by the msm.
There was 109 out of 350,000 travelers affected by the order when the media labeled this EO as causing "chaos". That's right, 109 people affected constitutes chaos to the msm.
How the order was implemented is irrelevant, the order applies to all equally, therefore it is legal. I know that is an inconvenient fact for those that don't like President Trump, and they are ignoring it, but short of some crazy activist judge ruling, this will be deemed legal.
I gave you an opportunity to withdraw the "no chaos" comment. Instead you reply that it was "irrelevant" that thousands of travelers were stranded - many in foreign countries, not their homeland. You insist that only 109 people were affected, and you couldn't be more wrong.
There was no chaos, that was a false narrative put out by the msm.
There was 109 out of 350,000 travelers affected by the order when the media labeled this EO as causing "chaos". That's right, 109 people affected constitutes chaos to the msm.
How the order was implemented is irrelevant, the order applies to all equally, therefore it is legal. I know that is an inconvenient fact for those that don't like President Trump, and they are ignoring it, but short of some crazy activist judge ruling, this will be deemed legal.
How are you defining "affected"? 109 is just the number of people that were physically detained when the order went through. If you define it as all people affected in some way, the number is much, much larger (estimated at 60,000 people).
"Well, that's not what General (John) Kelly said. General Kelly — who's now Secretary Kelly — he said he totally knew, he was aware of it, and it was very smooth. It was 109 people," Trump repeated.
Trump and his administration have used this figure to downplay the effects of the order many times.
Quote:
But it is not accurate.
Trump severely understated the scope of his action. He was referring to the number of people who were in transit to the United States when the order was released and detained at airports.
The story is more complicated and far-reaching than the frantic 24-hour travel period after the order’s release. The official estimate of the number of revoked visas alone is 60,000 — or almost 520 times the amount of people Trump claimed — and does not account for any refugees that were temporarily banned from resettlement.
Quote:
Between Jan. 27 and Feb. 2, more than 1,200 people were denied boarding flights to the United States, according to the Department of Homeland Security. Another 87 received waivers to board their planes and enter the country during that time.
A lawyer for the Justice Department told a federal court in Virginia that about 100,000 visas were revoked on Jan. 27.
But the State Department pinned the number at fewer than 60,000 visas issued to nationals of the seven countries and said they are currently investigating the discrepancy, according to The Hill.
A spokesperson for the State Department told PolitiFact that the 60,000 figure does not include refugees.
Quote:
It doesn’t account for people who tried to board flights to the United States (over 1,200) and were denied, for visas that were revoked (about 60,000 according to the State Department) or for refugees admitted (64,000 in the last two fiscal years).
Trump’s narrow claim ignores the full scope of his order’s impact. We rate it False.
Of course Trump is going to try to downplay the significance of the number of people affected by this order. Unfortunately for him, the facts aren't on his side.
One question that has not been answered is, why couldn't the president have ordered a review of the existing procedures and then implemented appropriate changes without ordering this poorly implemented ban which caused so much chaos?
Goodnight, craigiri, and justNancy have already spoken to this earlier in the thread, but I have yet to see an answer.
I believe that Judge Friedland implied this in her question to August Flentje, when she asked how many terrorist acts were committed by travelers from these countries, and his reply was "None, although 20 individuals had been arrested."
Anyone?
There may be credible threats of terror operations which cannot be revealed without jeopardizing intelligence sources. That would create a need for the temporary travel ban until better vetting processes are in place.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
