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.
Obama made vetting hugely restrictive. He took the existing vetting standards and made them the toughest in the world. that was about 5 years ago and it has worked great.
Trump is simply stoking fear and his sheep are bleating whatever he says.
The tough current standards have worked very well for the last 5 or 6 years, this whole 90 day ban is showmanship. It is bullsheet. politics pandering to his racist base and his fearful followers.
If Trump was a serious man he would have simply had his team rework the vetting standards quietly , get it right and then and ONLY then bring in the new standards. It would have be seamless and would have achieved any worthwhile goal..
But Trump wanted a big show, a big flashy ban to PROVE his manliness rather than fix anything that might be broken.
Trump is a ******, and frankly most of the world his him as the overweight blustering fool that he is.
And that's why in 2015 James Clapper said he wasn't confident about the vetting process for Syrian refugees? He's was an Obama guy and was even trying to maximize spin but still had to admit the vetting process was not sufficient. So if that's the public statement, can you imagine how bad it really is?
It's about their ability to aid in vetting, that's it. Can those countries verify basic information about who is requesting a visa. If not, they were put on the list.
It's because those countries can assist in the vetting process, such as confirming someone is who they say they are whereas the countries on this list cannot do so as they are failed states. This is the rationale why the EO was created and to allow someone into this country without even being able to accurately know they are who they say they are is a national security issue. Any day of the week, that would be considered a national security issue. One of the single most important things we need to know about those requesting visitation to our country? Who they are. If these countries cannot even assist in this most basic thing, then it is an intelligent and thoughtful thing to first stop travel from those countries until we can come up with a process which can account for those countries' inability to assist us in vetting these people requesting visas. As Saudi Arabia can and does have the mechanisms to assist us in vetting, they are not on the list.
So this EO is limited in scope, actually, by only stopping visas from failed states.
That's great and all but it is entirely contingent on Saudi Arabia acting as a good ally. Sure they should be trusted as a "vetting" partner?
your post is not based in fact in anyway at all. the vetting process is exactly the same as it was in dec 2016 where were you right wingers crying about vetting back then..
please tell me , link to your post declaring our vetting process is flawed,....
Obama made our vetting massively tougher, it put refuges back months and even years. yet as soon as trump daddy pretends our vetting is broken his sheep come out bleating his words.
shame on you Trump sheep.
our vetting is the highest it has ever been in history. At no point has it ever been this tough, yet here you all are bleating whatever BS trump makes up.
Have you been under a rock/. Our national Security advisors say they have no way to know that their vetting is at all keeping terrorists out. They need a better system to check them out ,they have no documents on them . As of now it is not in place. Obama lied to us. there is no extreme vetting going on bring Syrians here.
Here's my question: isn't it besides the point if Trump and other people in the administration have, at times, described this as a "Muslim ban" if it, in effect, is not a Muslim ban? And how does this square with Obamacare being upheld as constitutional as a tax despite the fact that President Obama, and others in his administration, specifically said it wasn't?
Oh so you're in favor of expanding the EO? I thought it was quite narrow since it didn't blame countries for bad acts of their citizens and only looked at those who couldn't assist in vetting. But hey, if you want to expand, by all means, make the argument.
Here's my question: isn't it besides the point if Trump and other people in the administration have, at times, described this as a "Muslim ban" if it, in effect, is not a Muslim ban? And how does this square with Obamacare being upheld as constitutional as a tax despite the fact that President Obama, and others in his administration, specifically said it wasn't?
Ah, and you've got it. You're right. It's about what the actual legal documents say and what is argued in court. That is all. So again, the 9th doing what the 9th does and going well outside the scope both of what they're being asked to decide and putting their own political opinions before the law.
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.
