Israeli citizens are barred

[Lucy Hamilton]

How many actually know about it?

My mother's job involved travel between USSR, Israel, China and Pakistan at one point. She had to be careful with the passport stamps between Pakistan and Israel and USSR and Israel.

The more germane question is: WHY don't more know about it?

The answer is simple, because it does not foster the MSM objective of open US borders. If they block US citizens the MSM couldn't care less...but us block anyone, then the MSM goes on bat shit crazy red alert.

Of course, the MSM is just a front for the RaTz masquerading as a "balanced journalistic entity".

I truly believe most batshit leftists don't know we have a customs agency that checks in international travelers. Hey stups, in Chicago, that is terminal five at O'Hare. It's why the protests were outside only that one terminal. CUSTOMS. You don't get to put a foot on the street without going through........CUSTOMS. Why the fk don't you goofs know this?

I find that most leftists rarely travel outside of a few mile radius of where they live. Part of that bubble world mentality gives them a fear of travel.

I beg to make an exception to that concerning charter buses loaded with paid and unpaid people to go to marches and protests and riots...but generally speaking their traveling dwarfs to international traveling

Touché. But I bet they black out the bus windows.

"Touché. But I bet they black out the bus windows."

Note to Coyote: The above is enlarged and the below is me still being On Topic in my own thread

 

[Sunni Man]

Israeli's are nothing but trouble.

I don't blame any country for denying them entry. .....

 

[mudwhistle]

..
[
Also childish and stupid.

Says the poster who follows people around indicating Muslim rape is funny to her.

Why are you so obsessed with me? I try to ignore you, and then you bring me up over and over in threads I have nothing to do with. Seek help.

In the meantime, should the US be barring immigrants based on religion like some of these Muslim countries do?

the US should be banning based on
real issues. Science is a matter of statistics. A real issue would be if there is a statistical PROBABLITY that this or that "ban" benefits the people
of the USA in terms of safety

Actually, more then just statistics.

Travel bans need to evaluate a spectrum of issues:

• the situation in the country in question - stability, terror threats, government in charge and how we work with it
  
• who/what groups exactly should be covered (people with legal residency cards, those born in those countries but naturalized citizens of another, refugees, various visa types etc)
• the effect of such a ban on the overall situation - blow back on the US, relations with other countries, effect on cooperative anti-terror efforts etc.

The current administration and it's rabid supporters don't see the need for those considerations.

On the contrary.....all of the above has been considered. The only difference being that nothing this current administration does goes uncritisized.....even if what they did was identical to the previous administration.

 

[mudwhistle]

Israeli's are nothing but trouble.

I don't blame any country for denying them entry. .....

Even if it's a Muslim born in Lebanon????

Reflections of a Lebanese woman in Israel
March 28, 2016, 11:10 am


"As a Lebanese woman who grew up in Beirut and made the move to the United States at age 22, I think it is fair to say it was an unusual choice to spend a 3-month sabbatical in Israel at the end of 2015. Add that my father was born in Haifa in 1948 and left with his family for Lebanon at that time, and my choice to live and work in Tel Aviv is even more interesting. To be honest, I had some misgivings and fear around this decision, but at the end of a 3-month working collaboration at Bar Ilan University, there was no doubt that this visit had been a very positive and eye opening experience for me on many levels. It is an experience that I wish were much more common amongst my fellow Lebanese because of the humanizing and understanding it added to my perspective on Israeli society and especially regarding Israelis themselves, who I grew up knowing only through the lens of news reports and conversations that were invariably unfavorable. I would like to share my story.

I have always been drawn to countercultural experiences, whether growing up in Beirut or living in California as an adult. However, as a proud Arab woman, nothing I have ever done was as profoundly countercultural as applying for an educational leave to work with an Israeli colleague for a semester at Bar Ilan University in Ramat Gan. I wrestled with telling my family that I had made this decision. When I did, I was met with resistance at first, then reluctant encouragement, and many questions.

“Why, of all places, would you want to visit Israel?” I was asked more than once.

“You won’t be allowed into the country, or if you are it will be a very difficult, humiliating experience.”

I was told that if people knew I visited Israel, I might never be allowed back into Lebanon.

“Be careful.”

“Don’t share photos of your trip on social media.”"

Reflections of a Lebanese woman in Israel​

 

[jc456]

..
[
Also childish and stupid.

Says the poster who follows people around indicating Muslim rape is funny to her.

Why are you so obsessed with me? I try to ignore you, and then you bring me up over and over in threads I have nothing to do with. Seek help.

In the meantime, should the US be barring immigrants based on religion like some of these Muslim countries do?

the US should be banning based on
real issues. Science is a matter of statistics. A real issue would be if there is a statistical PROBABLITY that this or that "ban" benefits the people
of the USA in terms of safety

Actually, more then just statistics.

Travel bans need to evaluate a spectrum of issues:

• the situation in the country in question - stability, terror threats, government in charge and how we work with it
  
• who/what groups exactly should be covered (people with legal residency cards, those born in those countries but naturalized citizens of another, refugees, various visa types etc)
• the effect of such a ban on the overall situation - blow back on the US, relations with other countries, effect on cooperative anti-terror efforts etc.

The current administration and it's rabid supporters don't see the need for those considerations.

On the contrary.....all of the above has been considered. The only difference being that nothing this current administration does goes uncritisized.....even if what they did was identical to the previous administration.

I give two shits what any of these leftist traitors thinks.

 

[Coyote]

..
[
Also childish and stupid.

Says the poster who follows people around indicating Muslim rape is funny to her.

Why are you so obsessed with me? I try to ignore you, and then you bring me up over and over in threads I have nothing to do with. Seek help.

In the meantime, should the US be barring immigrants based on religion like some of these Muslim countries do?

the US should be banning based on
real issues. Science is a matter of statistics. A real issue would be if there is a statistical PROBABLITY that this or that "ban" benefits the people
of the USA in terms of safety

Actually, more then just statistics.

Travel bans need to evaluate a spectrum of issues:

• the situation in the country in question - stability, terror threats, government in charge and how we work with it
  
• who/what groups exactly should be covered (people with legal residency cards, those born in those countries but naturalized citizens of another, refugees, various visa types etc)
• the effect of such a ban on the overall situation - blow back on the US, relations with other countries, effect on cooperative anti-terror efforts etc.

The current administration and it's rabid supporters don't see the need for those considerations.

On the contrary.....all of the above has been considered. The only difference being that nothing this current administration does goes uncritisized.....even if what they did was identical to the previous administration.

I don't think so, and here is why. It isn't "identical" to the previous administration. It also was not run by the various agencies normally involved in vetting EO's and in implementing their directives, prior to it's release. If it had been there would not have been all those detentions, confusion over green card holders, legal residents, naturalized citizens born in the affected countries etc. Trump's contempt for for the professionals in those agencies (state department, DHS, intelligence etc) is obvious, and this is the result of it.

Trump’s facile claim that his refugee policy is similar to Obama’s in 2011
So what’s the difference with Trump’s action?

First, Obama responded to an actual threat — the discovery that two Iraqi refugees had been implicated in bombmaking in Iraq that had targeted U.S. troops. (Iraq, after all, was a war zone.) Under congressional pressure, officials decided to reexamine all previous refugees and impose new screening procedures, which led to a slowdown in processing new applications. Trump, by contrast, issued his executive order without any known triggering threat. (His staff has pointed to attacks unrelated to the countries named in his order.)


Second, Obama did not announce a ban on visa applications. In fact, as seen in Napolitano’s answer to Collins, administration officials danced around that question. There was certainly a lot of news reporting that visa applications had slowed to a trickle. But the Obama administration never said it had a policy to halt all applications. Indeed, it is now clear that no ban was put in place. Even so, the delays did not go unnoticed, so there was a lot of critical news reporting at the time about the angst of Iraqis waiting for approval.


Third, Obama’s policy did not prevent all citizens of that country, including green-card holders, from traveling to the United States. Trump’s policy is much more sweeping, though officials have appeared to pull back from barring permanent U.S. residents.


We have sought comment from the White House and from Obama administration officials and so may update this if more information becomes available. But so far this is worthy of at least Two Pinocchios.


Update: In light of the response from Obama administration officials that there never was a point when Iraqi resettlement was stopped or banned, we are updating this ruling to Three Pinocchios. Iraqi refugee processing was slowed, in response to a specific threat, but it was not halted. The Trump White House, meanwhile, has failed to provide any evidence for its statement.

​

 

[jc456]

Says the poster who follows people around indicating Muslim rape is funny to her.

Why are you so obsessed with me? I try to ignore you, and then you bring me up over and over in threads I have nothing to do with. Seek help.

In the meantime, should the US be barring immigrants based on religion like some of these Muslim countries do?

the US should be banning based on
real issues. Science is a matter of statistics. A real issue would be if there is a statistical PROBABLITY that this or that "ban" benefits the people
of the USA in terms of safety

Actually, more then just statistics.

Travel bans need to evaluate a spectrum of issues:

• the situation in the country in question - stability, terror threats, government in charge and how we work with it
  
• who/what groups exactly should be covered (people with legal residency cards, those born in those countries but naturalized citizens of another, refugees, various visa types etc)
• the effect of such a ban on the overall situation - blow back on the US, relations with other countries, effect on cooperative anti-terror efforts etc.

The current administration and it's rabid supporters don't see the need for those considerations.

On the contrary.....all of the above has been considered. The only difference being that nothing this current administration does goes uncritisized.....even if what they did was identical to the previous administration.

I don't think so, and here is why. It isn't "identical" to the previous administration. It also was not run by the various agencies normally involved in vetting EO's and in implementing their directives, prior to it's release. If it had been there would not have been all those detentions, confusion over green card holders, legal residents, naturalized citizens born in the affected countries etc. Trump's contempt for for the professionals in those agencies (state department, DHS, intelligence etc) is obvious, and this is the result of it.

Trump’s facile claim that his refugee policy is similar to Obama’s in 2011
So what’s the difference with Trump’s action?

First, Obama responded to an actual threat — the discovery that two Iraqi refugees had been implicated in bombmaking in Iraq that had targeted U.S. troops. (Iraq, after all, was a war zone.) Under congressional pressure, officials decided to reexamine all previous refugees and impose new screening procedures, which led to a slowdown in processing new applications. Trump, by contrast, issued his executive order without any known triggering threat. (His staff has pointed to attacks unrelated to the countries named in his order.)


Second, Obama did not announce a ban on visa applications. In fact, as seen in Napolitano’s answer to Collins, administration officials danced around that question. There was certainly a lot of news reporting that visa applications had slowed to a trickle. But the Obama administration never said it had a policy to halt all applications. Indeed, it is now clear that no ban was put in place. Even so, the delays did not go unnoticed, so there was a lot of critical news reporting at the time about the angst of Iraqis waiting for approval.


Third, Obama’s policy did not prevent all citizens of that country, including green-card holders, from traveling to the United States. Trump’s policy is much more sweeping, though officials have appeared to pull back from barring permanent U.S. residents.


We have sought comment from the White House and from Obama administration officials and so may update this if more information becomes available. But so far this is worthy of at least Two Pinocchios.


Update: In light of the response from Obama administration officials that there never was a point when Iraqi resettlement was stopped or banned, we are updating this ruling to Three Pinocchios. Iraqi refugee processing was slowed, in response to a specific threat, but it was not halted. The Trump White House, meanwhile, has failed to provide any evidence for its statement.

​

I think they admitted they made mistakes on implementation.

 

[Stratford57]

Israeli citizens are barred from travelling to and also entering the following below sixteen nations, all of which are either completely Muslim or predominantly Muslim.

Where is the International Leftist Screaming Brigades uproar about this?

Israel being majority Jewish (I take into account that there are some Arab-Israeli's) isn't this barring people from entering nations based purely on religion?

Why aren't the International Leftist Screaming Brigades out on the streets protesting or is it just Muslims getting barred from Western nations that they worry about?

Sixteen countries forbid admission to Israeli passport holders:

• 
  Algeria
• 
  Bangladesh
• 
  Brunei
• 
  Iran
• 
  Iraq
• 
  Kuwait
• 
  Lebanon
• 
  Libya

• 
  Malaysia
• 
  Oman
• 
  Pakistan
• 
  Saudi Arabia
• 
  Sudan
• 
  Syria
• 
  United Arab Emirates
• 
  Yemen

Israeli passport - Wikipedia

Great post! Thanks for finding and posting that info. And just in time.

 

[Coyote]

Why are you so obsessed with me? I try to ignore you, and then you bring me up over and over in threads I have nothing to do with. Seek help.

In the meantime, should the US be barring immigrants based on religion like some of these Muslim countries do?

the US should be banning based on
real issues. Science is a matter of statistics. A real issue would be if there is a statistical PROBABLITY that this or that "ban" benefits the people
of the USA in terms of safety

Actually, more then just statistics.

Travel bans need to evaluate a spectrum of issues:

• the situation in the country in question - stability, terror threats, government in charge and how we work with it
  
• who/what groups exactly should be covered (people with legal residency cards, those born in those countries but naturalized citizens of another, refugees, various visa types etc)
• the effect of such a ban on the overall situation - blow back on the US, relations with other countries, effect on cooperative anti-terror efforts etc.

The current administration and it's rabid supporters don't see the need for those considerations.

On the contrary.....all of the above has been considered. The only difference being that nothing this current administration does goes uncritisized.....even if what they did was identical to the previous administration.

I don't think so, and here is why. It isn't "identical" to the previous administration. It also was not run by the various agencies normally involved in vetting EO's and in implementing their directives, prior to it's release. If it had been there would not have been all those detentions, confusion over green card holders, legal residents, naturalized citizens born in the affected countries etc. Trump's contempt for for the professionals in those agencies (state department, DHS, intelligence etc) is obvious, and this is the result of it.

Trump’s facile claim that his refugee policy is similar to Obama’s in 2011
So what’s the difference with Trump’s action?

First, Obama responded to an actual threat — the discovery that two Iraqi refugees had been implicated in bombmaking in Iraq that had targeted U.S. troops. (Iraq, after all, was a war zone.) Under congressional pressure, officials decided to reexamine all previous refugees and impose new screening procedures, which led to a slowdown in processing new applications. Trump, by contrast, issued his executive order without any known triggering threat. (His staff has pointed to attacks unrelated to the countries named in his order.)


Second, Obama did not announce a ban on visa applications. In fact, as seen in Napolitano’s answer to Collins, administration officials danced around that question. There was certainly a lot of news reporting that visa applications had slowed to a trickle. But the Obama administration never said it had a policy to halt all applications. Indeed, it is now clear that no ban was put in place. Even so, the delays did not go unnoticed, so there was a lot of critical news reporting at the time about the angst of Iraqis waiting for approval.


Third, Obama’s policy did not prevent all citizens of that country, including green-card holders, from traveling to the United States. Trump’s policy is much more sweeping, though officials have appeared to pull back from barring permanent U.S. residents.


We have sought comment from the White House and from Obama administration officials and so may update this if more information becomes available. But so far this is worthy of at least Two Pinocchios.


Update: In light of the response from Obama administration officials that there never was a point when Iraqi resettlement was stopped or banned, we are updating this ruling to Three Pinocchios. Iraqi refugee processing was slowed, in response to a specific threat, but it was not halted. The Trump White House, meanwhile, has failed to provide any evidence for its statement.

​

I think they admitted they made mistakes on implementation.

I'd say before implementation...was not well written or thought out. That's why we have career people in State Department, and in the security and intelligence agencies - that's part of their job, to sort through the ramifications and legalities.

What Trump should do is rescind it, take his lumps, redo it and vet it before implementation, plus make sure the relevant agencies are onboard and clear about how to implement it (though personally I think it should be trashed)...

 

[Moonglow]

The more germane question is: WHY don't more know about it?

The answer is simple, because it does not foster the MSM objective of open US borders. If they block US citizens the MSM couldn't care less...but us block anyone, then the MSM goes on bat shit crazy red alert.

Of course, the MSM is just a front for the RaTz masquerading as a "balanced journalistic entity".

I truly believe most batshit leftists don't know we have a customs agency that checks in international travelers. Hey stups, in Chicago, that is terminal five at O'Hare. It's why the protests were outside only that one terminal. CUSTOMS. You don't get to put a foot on the street without going through........CUSTOMS. Why the fk don't you goofs know this?

I find that most leftists rarely travel outside of a few mile radius of where they live. Part of that bubble world mentality gives them a fear of travel.

I beg to make an exception to that concerning charter buses loaded with paid and unpaid people to go to marches and protests and riots...but generally speaking their traveling dwarfs to international traveling

Touché. But I bet they black out the bus windows.

"Touché. But I bet they black out the bus windows."

Note to Coyote: The above is enlarged and the below is me still being On Topic in my own thread

I don't know to many Austrians that would know about that Hanna/ Barrera production...

 

[mudwhistle]

Says the poster who follows people around indicating Muslim rape is funny to her.

Why are you so obsessed with me? I try to ignore you, and then you bring me up over and over in threads I have nothing to do with. Seek help.

In the meantime, should the US be barring immigrants based on religion like some of these Muslim countries do?

the US should be banning based on
real issues. Science is a matter of statistics. A real issue would be if there is a statistical PROBABLITY that this or that "ban" benefits the people
of the USA in terms of safety

Actually, more then just statistics.

Travel bans need to evaluate a spectrum of issues:

• the situation in the country in question - stability, terror threats, government in charge and how we work with it
  
• who/what groups exactly should be covered (people with legal residency cards, those born in those countries but naturalized citizens of another, refugees, various visa types etc)
• the effect of such a ban on the overall situation - blow back on the US, relations with other countries, effect on cooperative anti-terror efforts etc.

The current administration and it's rabid supporters don't see the need for those considerations.

On the contrary.....all of the above has been considered. The only difference being that nothing this current administration does goes uncritisized.....even if what they did was identical to the previous administration.

I don't think so, and here is why. It isn't "identical" to the previous administration. It also was not run by the various agencies normally involved in vetting EO's and in implementing their directives, prior to it's release. If it had been there would not have been all those detentions, confusion over green card holders, legal residents, naturalized citizens born in the affected countries etc. Trump's contempt for for the professionals in those agencies (state department, DHS, intelligence etc) is obvious, and this is the result of it.

Trump’s facile claim that his refugee policy is similar to Obama’s in 2011
So what’s the difference with Trump’s action?

First, Obama responded to an actual threat — the discovery that two Iraqi refugees had been implicated in bombmaking in Iraq that had targeted U.S. troops. (Iraq, after all, was a war zone.) Under congressional pressure, officials decided to reexamine all previous refugees and impose new screening procedures, which led to a slowdown in processing new applications. Trump, by contrast, issued his executive order without any known triggering threat. (His staff has pointed to attacks unrelated to the countries named in his order.)


Second, Obama did not announce a ban on visa applications. In fact, as seen in Napolitano’s answer to Collins, administration officials danced around that question. There was certainly a lot of news reporting that visa applications had slowed to a trickle. But the Obama administration never said it had a policy to halt all applications. Indeed, it is now clear that no ban was put in place. Even so, the delays did not go unnoticed, so there was a lot of critical news reporting at the time about the angst of Iraqis waiting for approval.


Third, Obama’s policy did not prevent all citizens of that country, including green-card holders, from traveling to the United States. Trump’s policy is much more sweeping, though officials have appeared to pull back from barring permanent U.S. residents.


We have sought comment from the White House and from Obama administration officials and so may update this if more information becomes available. But so far this is worthy of at least Two Pinocchios.


Update: In light of the response from Obama administration officials that there never was a point when Iraqi resettlement was stopped or banned, we are updating this ruling to Three Pinocchios. Iraqi refugee processing was slowed, in response to a specific threat, but it was not halted. The Trump White House, meanwhile, has failed to provide any evidence for its statement.

​

Your post is too long. Especially since the first sentence is BS.

And anyone who thinks Trump isn't responding to a real threat needs to pull their head out of the sand.

 

[Edgetho]

the US should be banning based on
real issues. Science is a matter of statistics. A real issue would be if there is a statistical PROBABLITY that this or that "ban" benefits the people
of the USA in terms of safety

Actually, more then just statistics.

Travel bans need to evaluate a spectrum of issues:

• the situation in the country in question - stability, terror threats, government in charge and how we work with it
  
• who/what groups exactly should be covered (people with legal residency cards, those born in those countries but naturalized citizens of another, refugees, various visa types etc)
• the effect of such a ban on the overall situation - blow back on the US, relations with other countries, effect on cooperative anti-terror efforts etc.

The current administration and it's rabid supporters don't see the need for those considerations.

On the contrary.....all of the above has been considered. The only difference being that nothing this current administration does goes uncritisized.....even if what they did was identical to the previous administration.

I don't think so, and here is why. It isn't "identical" to the previous administration. It also was not run by the various agencies normally involved in vetting EO's and in implementing their directives, prior to it's release. If it had been there would not have been all those detentions, confusion over green card holders, legal residents, naturalized citizens born in the affected countries etc. Trump's contempt for for the professionals in those agencies (state department, DHS, intelligence etc) is obvious, and this is the result of it.

Trump’s facile claim that his refugee policy is similar to Obama’s in 2011
So what’s the difference with Trump’s action?

First, Obama responded to an actual threat — the discovery that two Iraqi refugees had been implicated in bombmaking in Iraq that had targeted U.S. troops. (Iraq, after all, was a war zone.) Under congressional pressure, officials decided to reexamine all previous refugees and impose new screening procedures, which led to a slowdown in processing new applications. Trump, by contrast, issued his executive order without any known triggering threat. (His staff has pointed to attacks unrelated to the countries named in his order.)


Second, Obama did not announce a ban on visa applications. In fact, as seen in Napolitano’s answer to Collins, administration officials danced around that question. There was certainly a lot of news reporting that visa applications had slowed to a trickle. But the Obama administration never said it had a policy to halt all applications. Indeed, it is now clear that no ban was put in place. Even so, the delays did not go unnoticed, so there was a lot of critical news reporting at the time about the angst of Iraqis waiting for approval.


Third, Obama’s policy did not prevent all citizens of that country, including green-card holders, from traveling to the United States. Trump’s policy is much more sweeping, though officials have appeared to pull back from barring permanent U.S. residents.


We have sought comment from the White House and from Obama administration officials and so may update this if more information becomes available. But so far this is worthy of at least Two Pinocchios.


Update: In light of the response from Obama administration officials that there never was a point when Iraqi resettlement was stopped or banned, we are updating this ruling to Three Pinocchios. Iraqi refugee processing was slowed, in response to a specific threat, but it was not halted. The Trump White House, meanwhile, has failed to provide any evidence for its statement.

​

I think they admitted they made mistakes on implementation.

I'd say before implementation...was not well written or thought out. That's why we have career people in State Department, and in the security and intelligence agencies - that's part of their job, to sort through the ramifications and legalities.

What Trump should do is rescind it, take his lumps, redo it and vet it before implementation, plus make sure the relevant agencies are onboard and clear about how to implement it (though personally I think it should be trashed)...

I am not convinced Trump made a mistake.

I think it is more than possible he was going for shock value.

He's not kidding around, he really does want to take the radicals down. Hard

 

[mudwhistle]

Actually, more then just statistics.

Travel bans need to evaluate a spectrum of issues:

• the situation in the country in question - stability, terror threats, government in charge and how we work with it
  
• who/what groups exactly should be covered (people with legal residency cards, those born in those countries but naturalized citizens of another, refugees, various visa types etc)
• the effect of such a ban on the overall situation - blow back on the US, relations with other countries, effect on cooperative anti-terror efforts etc.

The current administration and it's rabid supporters don't see the need for those considerations.

On the contrary.....all of the above has been considered. The only difference being that nothing this current administration does goes uncritisized.....even if what they did was identical to the previous administration.

I don't think so, and here is why. It isn't "identical" to the previous administration. It also was not run by the various agencies normally involved in vetting EO's and in implementing their directives, prior to it's release. If it had been there would not have been all those detentions, confusion over green card holders, legal residents, naturalized citizens born in the affected countries etc. Trump's contempt for for the professionals in those agencies (state department, DHS, intelligence etc) is obvious, and this is the result of it.

Trump’s facile claim that his refugee policy is similar to Obama’s in 2011
So what’s the difference with Trump’s action?

First, Obama responded to an actual threat — the discovery that two Iraqi refugees had been implicated in bombmaking in Iraq that had targeted U.S. troops. (Iraq, after all, was a war zone.) Under congressional pressure, officials decided to reexamine all previous refugees and impose new screening procedures, which led to a slowdown in processing new applications. Trump, by contrast, issued his executive order without any known triggering threat. (His staff has pointed to attacks unrelated to the countries named in his order.)


Second, Obama did not announce a ban on visa applications. In fact, as seen in Napolitano’s answer to Collins, administration officials danced around that question. There was certainly a lot of news reporting that visa applications had slowed to a trickle. But the Obama administration never said it had a policy to halt all applications. Indeed, it is now clear that no ban was put in place. Even so, the delays did not go unnoticed, so there was a lot of critical news reporting at the time about the angst of Iraqis waiting for approval.


Third, Obama’s policy did not prevent all citizens of that country, including green-card holders, from traveling to the United States. Trump’s policy is much more sweeping, though officials have appeared to pull back from barring permanent U.S. residents.


We have sought comment from the White House and from Obama administration officials and so may update this if more information becomes available. But so far this is worthy of at least Two Pinocchios.


Update: In light of the response from Obama administration officials that there never was a point when Iraqi resettlement was stopped or banned, we are updating this ruling to Three Pinocchios. Iraqi refugee processing was slowed, in response to a specific threat, but it was not halted. The Trump White House, meanwhile, has failed to provide any evidence for its statement.

​

I think they admitted they made mistakes on implementation.

I'd say before implementation...was not well written or thought out. That's why we have career people in State Department, and in the security and intelligence agencies - that's part of their job, to sort through the ramifications and legalities.

What Trump should do is rescind it, take his lumps, redo it and vet it before implementation, plus make sure the relevant agencies are onboard and clear about how to implement it (though personally I think it should be trashed)...

I am not convinced Trump made a mistake.

I think it is more than possible he was going for shock value.

He's not kidding around, he really does want to take the radicals down. Hard

The libs call it a mistake. They have a habit of exaggerating the truth. I would say if it really was a mistake the left would be calling it the worst thing to happen since the Holocaust.

 

[Edgetho]

I just don't understand dimocraps......

What was Trump supposed to do? Announce his plan to the World? Assemble a committee? Hear testimony from hundreds of people? Take it to the UN? Get a vote of confidence from the House and Senate? Go on TV thirty-seven times to discuss it with some of the most ignorant FUCKS in the world?

Ask Madonna and that Judd scrunt what they think? Maybe seek approval from Jon Stewart and -- Whatevs.....?

Meanwhile, a thousand Jihadi asswipes are sneaking into the Country.

Trump did what he had to do.

Ever notice, dimocrap scum, that when you inevitably get fired, that you're not given any notice?

Ever wonder why that is? Probably not.

I bet dimocrap scum think we should have had an open discussion about when and where the invasion of Northern Europe should have taken place back in 1944.

dimocraps are some stupid fucks. They seriously are

 

[mudwhistle]

the US should be banning based on
real issues. Science is a matter of statistics. A real issue would be if there is a statistical PROBABLITY that this or that "ban" benefits the people
of the USA in terms of safety

Actually, more then just statistics.

Travel bans need to evaluate a spectrum of issues:

• the situation in the country in question - stability, terror threats, government in charge and how we work with it
  
• who/what groups exactly should be covered (people with legal residency cards, those born in those countries but naturalized citizens of another, refugees, various visa types etc)
• the effect of such a ban on the overall situation - blow back on the US, relations with other countries, effect on cooperative anti-terror efforts etc.

The current administration and it's rabid supporters don't see the need for those considerations.

On the contrary.....all of the above has been considered. The only difference being that nothing this current administration does goes uncritisized.....even if what they did was identical to the previous administration.

I don't think so, and here is why. It isn't "identical" to the previous administration. It also was not run by the various agencies normally involved in vetting EO's and in implementing their directives, prior to it's release. If it had been there would not have been all those detentions, confusion over green card holders, legal residents, naturalized citizens born in the affected countries etc. Trump's contempt for for the professionals in those agencies (state department, DHS, intelligence etc) is obvious, and this is the result of it.

Trump’s facile claim that his refugee policy is similar to Obama’s in 2011
So what’s the difference with Trump’s action?

First, Obama responded to an actual threat — the discovery that two Iraqi refugees had been implicated in bombmaking in Iraq that had targeted U.S. troops. (Iraq, after all, was a war zone.) Under congressional pressure, officials decided to reexamine all previous refugees and impose new screening procedures, which led to a slowdown in processing new applications. Trump, by contrast, issued his executive order without any known triggering threat. (His staff has pointed to attacks unrelated to the countries named in his order.)


Second, Obama did not announce a ban on visa applications. In fact, as seen in Napolitano’s answer to Collins, administration officials danced around that question. There was certainly a lot of news reporting that visa applications had slowed to a trickle. But the Obama administration never said it had a policy to halt all applications. Indeed, it is now clear that no ban was put in place. Even so, the delays did not go unnoticed, so there was a lot of critical news reporting at the time about the angst of Iraqis waiting for approval.


Third, Obama’s policy did not prevent all citizens of that country, including green-card holders, from traveling to the United States. Trump’s policy is much more sweeping, though officials have appeared to pull back from barring permanent U.S. residents.


We have sought comment from the White House and from Obama administration officials and so may update this if more information becomes available. But so far this is worthy of at least Two Pinocchios.


Update: In light of the response from Obama administration officials that there never was a point when Iraqi resettlement was stopped or banned, we are updating this ruling to Three Pinocchios. Iraqi refugee processing was slowed, in response to a specific threat, but it was not halted. The Trump White House, meanwhile, has failed to provide any evidence for its statement.

​

I think they admitted they made mistakes on implementation.

I'd say before implementation...was not well written or thought out. That's why we have career people in State Department, and in the security and intelligence agencies - that's part of their job, to sort through the ramifications and legalities.

What Trump should do is rescind it, take his lumps, redo it and vet it before implementation, plus make sure the relevant agencies are onboard and clear about how to implement it (though personally I think it should be trashed)...

Thanks for the input.....but no thanks.

BTW, I feel exactly the same way about the Unaffordable Care Act.

 

[mudwhistle]

I just don't understand dimocraps......

What was Trump supposed to do? Announce his plan to the World? Assemble a committee? Hear testimony from hundreds of people? Take it to the UN? Get a vote of confidence from the House and Senate? Go on TV thirty-seven times to discuss it with some of the most ignorant FUCKS in the world?

Ask Madonna and that Judd scrunt what they think? Maybe seek approval from Jon Stewart and -- Whatevs.....?

Meanwhile, a thousand Jihadi asswipes are sneaking into the Country.

Trump did what he had to do.

Ever notice, dimocrap scum, that when you inevitably get fired, that you're not given any notice?

Ever wonder why that is? Probably not.

I bet dimocrap scum think we should have had an open discussion about when and where the invasion of Northern Europe should have taken place back in 1944.

dimocraps are some stupid fucks. They seriously are

Only way to make an Omelet is to break some eggs.

 

[Contumacious]

Israeli citizens are barred from travelling to and also entering the following below sixteen nations, all of which are either completely Muslim or predominantly Muslim.

Where is the International Leftist Screaming Brigades uproar about this?

Israel being majority Jewish (I take into account that there are some Arab-Israeli's) isn't this barring people from entering nations based purely on religion?

Why aren't the International Leftist Screaming Brigades out on the streets protesting or is it just Muslims getting barred from Western nations that they worry about?

Sixteen countries forbid admission to Israeli passport holders:

• 
  Algeria
• 
  Bangladesh
• 
  Brunei
• 
  Iran
• 
  Iraq
• 
  Kuwait
• 
  Lebanon
• 
  Libya

• 
  Malaysia
• 
  Oman
• 
  Pakistan
• 
  Saudi Arabia
• 
  Sudan
• 
  Syria
• 
  United Arab Emirates
• 
  Yemen

Israeli passport - Wikipedia

You are forgetting that Israel has NO RIGHT TO EXIST IN PALESTINE. NONE


.

 

[jc456]

the US should be banning based on
real issues. Science is a matter of statistics. A real issue would be if there is a statistical PROBABLITY that this or that "ban" benefits the people
of the USA in terms of safety

Actually, more then just statistics.

Travel bans need to evaluate a spectrum of issues:

• the situation in the country in question - stability, terror threats, government in charge and how we work with it
  
• who/what groups exactly should be covered (people with legal residency cards, those born in those countries but naturalized citizens of another, refugees, various visa types etc)
• the effect of such a ban on the overall situation - blow back on the US, relations with other countries, effect on cooperative anti-terror efforts etc.

The current administration and it's rabid supporters don't see the need for those considerations.

On the contrary.....all of the above has been considered. The only difference being that nothing this current administration does goes uncritisized.....even if what they did was identical to the previous administration.

I don't think so, and here is why. It isn't "identical" to the previous administration. It also was not run by the various agencies normally involved in vetting EO's and in implementing their directives, prior to it's release. If it had been there would not have been all those detentions, confusion over green card holders, legal residents, naturalized citizens born in the affected countries etc. Trump's contempt for for the professionals in those agencies (state department, DHS, intelligence etc) is obvious, and this is the result of it.

Trump’s facile claim that his refugee policy is similar to Obama’s in 2011
So what’s the difference with Trump’s action?

First, Obama responded to an actual threat — the discovery that two Iraqi refugees had been implicated in bombmaking in Iraq that had targeted U.S. troops. (Iraq, after all, was a war zone.) Under congressional pressure, officials decided to reexamine all previous refugees and impose new screening procedures, which led to a slowdown in processing new applications. Trump, by contrast, issued his executive order without any known triggering threat. (His staff has pointed to attacks unrelated to the countries named in his order.)


Second, Obama did not announce a ban on visa applications. In fact, as seen in Napolitano’s answer to Collins, administration officials danced around that question. There was certainly a lot of news reporting that visa applications had slowed to a trickle. But the Obama administration never said it had a policy to halt all applications. Indeed, it is now clear that no ban was put in place. Even so, the delays did not go unnoticed, so there was a lot of critical news reporting at the time about the angst of Iraqis waiting for approval.


Third, Obama’s policy did not prevent all citizens of that country, including green-card holders, from traveling to the United States. Trump’s policy is much more sweeping, though officials have appeared to pull back from barring permanent U.S. residents.


We have sought comment from the White House and from Obama administration officials and so may update this if more information becomes available. But so far this is worthy of at least Two Pinocchios.


Update: In light of the response from Obama administration officials that there never was a point when Iraqi resettlement was stopped or banned, we are updating this ruling to Three Pinocchios. Iraqi refugee processing was slowed, in response to a specific threat, but it was not halted. The Trump White House, meanwhile, has failed to provide any evidence for its statement.

​

I think they admitted they made mistakes on implementation.

I'd say before implementation...was not well written or thought out. That's why we have career people in State Department, and in the security and intelligence agencies - that's part of their job, to sort through the ramifications and legalities.

What Trump should do is rescind it, take his lumps, redo it and vet it before implementation, plus make sure the relevant agencies are onboard and clear about how to implement it (though personally I think it should be trashed)...

I think that admitting it might have been done more graciously is one thing, what you offer up is rather a pathetic effort for something different. There was a reason why it was done in the timeframe it was done, and he explained it. Look it up.

AS mud stated, if you want to go to rescinding mistakes, obummerscare would be one to start with. Why don't you suggest that to the dems.

 

[Edgetho]

You are forgetting that Israel has NO RIGHT TO EXIST IN PALESTINE. NONE


.

Yes they do, moron. It's the oldest right in the book, recognized since the beginning of Time itself --

"By Right Of Military Conquest"

It's a real thing

Suck on it, moron

 

[Coyote]

Actually, more then just statistics.

Travel bans need to evaluate a spectrum of issues:

• the situation in the country in question - stability, terror threats, government in charge and how we work with it
  
• who/what groups exactly should be covered (people with legal residency cards, those born in those countries but naturalized citizens of another, refugees, various visa types etc)
• the effect of such a ban on the overall situation - blow back on the US, relations with other countries, effect on cooperative anti-terror efforts etc.

The current administration and it's rabid supporters don't see the need for those considerations.

On the contrary.....all of the above has been considered. The only difference being that nothing this current administration does goes uncritisized.....even if what they did was identical to the previous administration.

I don't think so, and here is why. It isn't "identical" to the previous administration. It also was not run by the various agencies normally involved in vetting EO's and in implementing their directives, prior to it's release. If it had been there would not have been all those detentions, confusion over green card holders, legal residents, naturalized citizens born in the affected countries etc. Trump's contempt for for the professionals in those agencies (state department, DHS, intelligence etc) is obvious, and this is the result of it.

Trump’s facile claim that his refugee policy is similar to Obama’s in 2011
So what’s the difference with Trump’s action?

First, Obama responded to an actual threat — the discovery that two Iraqi refugees had been implicated in bombmaking in Iraq that had targeted U.S. troops. (Iraq, after all, was a war zone.) Under congressional pressure, officials decided to reexamine all previous refugees and impose new screening procedures, which led to a slowdown in processing new applications. Trump, by contrast, issued his executive order without any known triggering threat. (His staff has pointed to attacks unrelated to the countries named in his order.)


Second, Obama did not announce a ban on visa applications. In fact, as seen in Napolitano’s answer to Collins, administration officials danced around that question. There was certainly a lot of news reporting that visa applications had slowed to a trickle. But the Obama administration never said it had a policy to halt all applications. Indeed, it is now clear that no ban was put in place. Even so, the delays did not go unnoticed, so there was a lot of critical news reporting at the time about the angst of Iraqis waiting for approval.


Third, Obama’s policy did not prevent all citizens of that country, including green-card holders, from traveling to the United States. Trump’s policy is much more sweeping, though officials have appeared to pull back from barring permanent U.S. residents.


We have sought comment from the White House and from Obama administration officials and so may update this if more information becomes available. But so far this is worthy of at least Two Pinocchios.


Update: In light of the response from Obama administration officials that there never was a point when Iraqi resettlement was stopped or banned, we are updating this ruling to Three Pinocchios. Iraqi refugee processing was slowed, in response to a specific threat, but it was not halted. The Trump White House, meanwhile, has failed to provide any evidence for its statement.

​

I think they admitted they made mistakes on implementation.

I'd say before implementation...was not well written or thought out. That's why we have career people in State Department, and in the security and intelligence agencies - that's part of their job, to sort through the ramifications and legalities.

What Trump should do is rescind it, take his lumps, redo it and vet it before implementation, plus make sure the relevant agencies are onboard and clear about how to implement it (though personally I think it should be trashed)...

I think that admitting it might have been done more graciously is one thing, what you offer up is rather a pathetic effort for something different. There was a reason why it was done in the timeframe it was done, and he explained it. Look it up.

AS mud stated, if you want to go to rescinding mistakes, obummerscare would be one to start with. Why don't you suggest that to the dems.

I saw the explanation but it was pathetically weak. There was no crisis - no emergency - dictating the action to begin with. There was no imminent terrorist threat forcing an extreme action. There was no reason it couldn't have been quickly vetted by at least some of the relevant agencies. All I'm seeing is you guys making crappy excuses for Trump's messy and poorly executed EO and complete lack of professionalism. And, in case you haven't noticed, Obama isn't president now.