I’m broadly in agreement with former Defense Secretary Robert Gates’s measured reaction which I’m listening to right now. I think that the Trump Administration has bungled, as Sec. Gates called it, the “roll-out” of the executive order. And, based on what I know of the executive order, it’s overly broad. Exceptions should have been made for present legal immigrants (“green card holders”), those who worked for the U. S. military abroad, and others. I’m on record as supporting increased immigration from those who’ve helped us.
Framing it as a “Muslim ban” is inflammatory. The EO bans, what, maybe 15% of Muslims? The press didn’t similarly recoil when President Obama declared a hiatus on refugees from Iraq.
I’m more concerned about the issues of temperament revealed by the EO than I am about the policy. And that’s why I didn’t vote for Trump in the first place.
It’s not a Muslim ban? Dave, it’s a Muslim ban from any Muslim country where Trump does not have business interests.
And of course Trump continues to follow Moscow’s orders. Why is Lebanon not on the list when they are dominated by an actual terrorist organization, Hezbollah? Hezbollah allied to Assad allied to Putin.
So it’s a Muslim ban aimed at the countries which have thus far contributed zero terrorist attacks in the US, which exempts the KSA, the UAE and Egypt – the three main contributors to 911. Three countries where, gosh, what a surprise: Trump has money invested. And Lebanon is thrown in to serve Putin.
Have you noticed as well that Trump has already filed as a candidate for 2012. Know why? Because unlimited PAC donations, that’s why.
It might be instructive to peruse the last administration’s participation in very similar policies dealing with immigration and detention:
Here’s Obama’s approval making it possible to indefinitely detain American citizens without due process?
Then there is Obama’s presidential hand in dealing with no fly lists without due process legislation.
Also, what about the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015?
Over at Legal Insurrection there is a more factual, detailed analysis
“Debunking the supposed “Muslim Ban†and other accusations-gone-wild”, that seem to instantly be floating around everywhere.
As for Trump’s alleged ties to the majority-Muslim countries spared a travel ban, not much evidence has surfaced. The New York Daily News noted that “not much is known†about Trump’s interests in Saudi Arabia and labeled Trump’s business holdings in Egypt as “characteristically vague.†When and if more is known then that kind of insinuation, IMO, will have more merit.
Why would we recoil when you place a ban on just one country? That suggests a focus on what was perceived as a real problem in a focused area. In this case, we have a more generalized ban, that just happens to leave off the country that has exported the terrorists that have caused the most damage in the US, Saudi Arabia. (It’s OK if you read stupid right wing arguments, but please don’t repeat them.)
Steve
Here’s yet another less hysterical review of Trump’s EO, separating out fact from fiction.
“President-elect Donald Trump registered eight companies during his presidential campaign that appear to be tied to hotel interests in Saudi Arabia, according to a report in The Washington Post.
Trump registered the companies in August 2015, shortly after launching his presidential bid, according to The Post.
The companies were registered under names such as THC Jeddah Hotel and DT Jeddah Technical Services, according to financial disclosure filings.
The names of the companies registered appeared similar in pattern to how Trump named other companies connected to hotel deals registered in foreign cities, according to the Post. Trump names companies after cities in the state in which he is dealing with. Jiddah, also spelled Jeddah, is the second-largest city in Saudi Arabia, located on the Red Sea coast about 60 miles west of Mecca.
The Post reported that by the time of Trump’s May financial filing, four of those companies in which Trump was the president or director were still active. Trump has in the past said he wants to protect the oil-rich Arab kingdom.
During a rally on August 21, the day Trump created four of those companies, he said he gets along well with Saudi Arabia.
“They buy apartments from me,” Trump said during the Alabama rally. “They spend $40 million, $50 million. Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much.â€
In January of this year, Trump said on Fox News he “would want to protect Saudi Arabia.”
This was a dumb, poorly planned, poorly executed, amatuer, counterproductive EO and parts of it are likely illegal.
A relevant question: Is this EO a reasonable security measure?
Clearly it isn’t as it excludes the primary and historical threat countries (and contra the liberal line, it’s not just about Trump business interests – see Pakistan and Afghanistan as two obvious examples).
So, it doesn’t make any sense from a security standpoint – the only way it makes sense (to me at least) is a pure political move to fulfill a campaign promise. Unfortunately, it does so in a completely stupid, hamfisted way that probably hurts US security in the long run.
Yeah, I think he’s fulfilling a campaign promise. That doesn’t make me like it any more because I thought it was a dumb campaign promise.
Saudi Arabia is the obvious case as that is where most of the terrorists and most of the funding for terrorists comes from. Since he also excludes Pakistan and Afghanistan I agree this is not just about his business interests, but when the claim is made we don’t know anything about Trump’s interests in Saudi Arabia, that should be refuted.
Steve
I want to comment on the refugee crisis facing Europe and the U.S., in light of Trump’s edict.
I’ve always though that it was wrong to advertise throughout the third world, and sub- Saharan Africa in particular, that the answer to their problems is mass migration.
I actually believe Trump does them a service by declaring that the road is closed. This way, they make new plans for their future that do not include giving up what little they have in hope of travel to Nirvana. They should expend their efforts building improvements at home. And if you say they are not up to it, I call you a racist.
The problem with the Trump business interests angle is that there is no proof and other explanations make more logical sense. Trump’s actions with this EO are bad enough that people should not have to rely on dubious claims based on zero evidence.
Andy-Trump’s own words are zero evidence? Sigh, guess I have to agree with you.
Steve
Gray:
A minuscule number reach the US or Canada. They’re trying to reach Europe, so Trump will have no effect on people attempting to feel the MENA.
All he’s done is to ham-handedly appall the world. If he were not such a clueless oaf he might have pulled it off, but he is utterly ignorant and being advised by a wife-beating Nazi, so whatever the jackass thought he was doing, he’s managed to create a mess that is 100% downside, 0% upside. . . except insofar as it plays to his lunatic base.
Now that I’ve had a chance to actually read the EO, it turns out the countries are not named in the EO itself- they are countries of concern that already exist in a US law called the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015. FAQ Here. This is the list Trump’s EO used.
Andy:
Such as?
The points of origin for the 911 bombers are all exempt. KSA, the home office of violent jihad, home to 15 of the 19 terrorists? Exempt. Lebanon, home to Hezbollah, exempt. Pakistan, home to the fugitive Osama bin Laden, guardian of the Taliban, possessor of nukes, and eternally unstable basket case? Not on the list.
Steve,
“Andy-Trump’s own words are zero evidence? Sigh, guess I have to agree with you.”
I was talking specifically about the implication that the country list is based on where Trump has business interests. There is no evidence that is the case.
Michael,
“Such as?”
See previous comments. The list is based on an existing list of restricted countries.
Andy- He really did say what I quoted above. How do we know that was not a factor? Really, he just copied a list from the Obama admin? A list that just required people to have visas to visit here. Kind of begs the question if they were too lazy to make up their own list. If you are going to take the step of shutting down entry entirely, why limit it to those places? Why not the places actually sending terrorists? This doesnt hold water. Looks much more like a poorly thought out and implemented plan to make it look like he was doing something.
Steve
“All he’s done is to ham-handedly appall the world. If he were not such a clueless oaf he might have pulled it off, but he is utterly ignorant and being advised by a wife-beating Nazi, so whatever the jackass thought he was doing, he’s managed to create a mess that is 100% downside, 0% upside. . . except insofar as it plays to his lunatic base.”
Gosh, that sounds bad.
Drew, always comforting to see your POV.
Steve,
“Andy- He really did say what I quoted above. How do we know that was not a factor? Really, he just copied a list from the Obama admin? A list that just required people to have visas to visit here.”
– The quoted portion only points out the obvious fact that Trump has business interests in KSA. It says nothing about the reason this EO used the list it did. We don’t know whether or not his business interests were a factor in the decision. My point is that there is no evidence they were a factor and people who suggest otherwise who don’t present something substantive are speculating.
– Trump did not “copy” the list. Read the EO. It “hyperlinks” to that list by reference the actual law that created it. So if that list changes for the visa law, it also changes for this EO.
“Kind of begs the question if they were too lazy to make up their own list. If you are going to take the step of shutting down entry entirely, why limit it to those places?”
You should read the EO. Admittedly the press has done a very poor job of explaining it. That list was chosen because it is a list of countries already designated by the US government as “countries of concern.” This is just the initial list and other countries could be added.
Regarding that, the EO is really about implementing a new visa adjudication process. The “ban” for 90 days is in one paragraph of one section. The 90 day ban is intended to allow this new process to get up and running. The new process requires the State Department and DHS to review what kind of information they need to adjudicate visas to a higher standard as well as increase their own procedures to include an in-person interview. The EO also requires State and DHS to determine if host countries provide adequate information on travellers to the US so agencies can make a visa determination. State and DHS then must provide the President with a list of countries that don’t provide adequate information and presumably those countries would be added to the list or remain on the list (as the case may be). So the intent, as the EO is written, is that after 90 days, visas will again be available for those 7 countries provided the new procedures are in place. So that list could be expanded or reduced or changed depending on what DHS and State decide.
As mentioned, this EO essentially demands that other governments give us information on their citizens who wish to travel to the US so that we can vet them and, if they don’t, their citizens may be not be granted visas (there is a paragraph where DHS can grant exceptions). This part is really a BFD that the media has not discussed at all. Some countries, who are pissed of, may refuse to give whatever info the administration wants (and it’s not clear what the requirement will be – it’s not spelled out in the EO, so DHS/State will determine the information requirements). Some countries may not be able to obtain the required information because they simply don’t have it (a condition that could easily apply to the 7 countries listed).
So this could turn into a major cluster and diplomatic row down the road if the administration information requirements are unreasonable and other countries push back.
Additionally, there is another section in the EO that requires visa reciprocity – so whatever restrictions a country puts on US citizens regarding visa requirements, the US will put on their citizens. So, if a country gets pissed at us and increases their visa requirements for US citizens, we will match them. The potential for a snowball effect definitely exists – again this is another aspect the media has largely ignored.
“Why not the places actually sending terrorists? ”
Good question, but it’s one that goes back a 1/4 century. Every administration has been hypocritical about threats for allied Muslim countries, particularly Saudi Arabia and I doubt this one will be any different.
I read Volokh regularly as the are fairly non-partisan. They make the case that this EO was written w/o input from the other agencies you would normally expect. Also, it is not clear if OLC cleared this. May be illegal on those grounds.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/29/president-trump-may-hire-only-the-best-people-but-he-did-not-rely-upon-them-to-draft-and-implement-his-latest-executive-order/?utm_term=.f691131f332e