• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was the Muslim ban really intended to be temporary?

Was the Muslim ban really intended to be temporary?

  • Yes

    Votes: 14 28.0%

  • No

    Votes: 24 48.0%

  • I don't know

    Votes: 12 24.0%
  • Total voters
    50
Greenbeard

Greenbeard

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
20,197
Reaction score
21,564
Location
Cambridge, MA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
At the time it was introduced, defenders of the ban insisted it was just a temporary measure. The argument was that the administration needed 90 days to review and/or improve vetting policy and procedures, after which the ban would be lifted.

Trump himself indicated as much:
Trump said the US would "again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days."
Click to expand...

And while the courts blocked the actual ban (specifically sections 3(c), 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), and 5(e) of the EO) from taking effect, I'm not aware of any court blocking sections 3(a) and 3(b)--ostensibly the rationale for the ban--from proceeding. In other words, there's been nothing preventing Homeland Security from completing its charge to "immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat."

Given that the 90 day window they supposedly needed to review those vetting procedures and implement any improvements lapsed last week (and, indeed, the report on DHS's review of the vetting procedures was due over 60 days ago), why is this matter still tying up judicial resources? Surely this was a top priority for the administration and was completed on time.

There shouldn't be any need for a ban at this point. Unless, of course, it was never intended to be temporary anyway and the rationale for it was just a smokescreen.
 
Last edited:
Greenbeard said:
At the time it was introduced, defenders of the ban insisted it was just a temporary measure. The argument was that the administration needed 90 days to review and/or improve vetting policy and procedures, after which the ban would be lifted.

Trump himself indicated as much:


And while the courts blocked the actual ban (specifically sections 3(c), 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), and 5(e) of the EO) from taking effect, I'm not aware of any court blocking sections 3(a) and 3(b)--ostensibly the rationale for the ban--from proceeding. In other words, there's been nothing preventing Homeland Security from completing its charge to "immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat."

Given that the 90 day window they supposedly needed to review those vetting procedures and implement any improvements lapsed last week (and, indeed, the report on DHS's review of the vetting procedures was due over 60 days ago), why is this matter still tying up judicial resources? Surely this was a top priority for the administration and was completed on time.

There shouldn't be any need for a ban at this point. Unless, of course, it was never intended to be temporary anyway and the rationale for it was just a smokescreen.
Click to expand...

TEXT of the Exceutive Order:

Section 3(c)....I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).
Click to expand...
Here Is The Full Text Of Trump's Muslim Ban Executive Order That Trashed American Democracy

The was no "Muslim Ban." That is an intentional misrepresentation (ala Orwellian "1984 Newspeak") of the Executive Order designed to push the xenophobic and anti-religion narrative.

In order for it to be a "Muslim Ban" every nation with a Muslim population would have had to be listed, not just the seven (now six) where we have been dealing with mass refugee and Islamic terrorist concerns.

Moreover, only Muslims would have been specified, not all immigrants and non-immigrants from those listed nations.

Finally, the "Ban" itself indicated a specific period of 90 days after which it could be renewed, modified, or completely removed.

So to answer the actual question, was the temporary ban on travel/immigration of citizens of seven specified nations of concern intended to be permanent? The answer is clearly NO.
 
Last edited:
What Muslim ban? Citation of said Muslim ban is needed.
 
If something contains a sunset (expiration?) date then it is temporary. Whether that will be followed by an extension is anyone's guess. I don't recall Muslim appearing anywhere in that EO but I do recall an expiration date. The rationale was clear - some countries do not have functional (or cooperative) governments to assist in the vetting process.
 
Captain Adverse said:
The was no "Muslim Ban." That is an intentional misrepresentation (ala Orwellian "1984 Newspeak") of the Executive Order designed to push the xenophobic and anti-religion narrative.
Click to expand...

Trump was never shy about expressing his ultimate intentions:



Talk about pushing the xenophobic and anti-religion narrative!

So to answer the actual question, was the temporary ban on travel/immigration of citizens of seven specified nations of concern intended to be permanent? The answer is clearly NO.
Click to expand...

Which raises the question of why he's still seeking to implement it. The 90 days needed to review our vetting procedures has passed.
 
If Trump had argued, not that Muslim ban will keep us safe, but that he wants to send a message to the world that this terrorism has got to stop.

If we had made this point rather than leaving it it up to the banned to figure out or go some other way with (resentment, hatred) we could have sent them home with dignity to carry this message to their people.

As it was we only sent a few people home temporarily undignified.

How about you, do you think the length of the travel ban was sufficient to send a message to the world that this terrorism has got to stop?

I don't think so, but the President did not argue this.
 
Greenbeard said:
At the time it was introduced, defenders of the ban insisted it was just a temporary measure. The argument was that the administration needed 90 days to review and/or improve vetting policy and procedures, after which the ban would be lifted.

Trump himself indicated as much:


And while the courts blocked the actual ban (specifically sections 3(c), 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), and 5(e) of the EO) from taking effect, I'm not aware of any court blocking sections 3(a) and 3(b)--ostensibly the rationale for the ban--from proceeding. In other words, there's been nothing preventing Homeland Security from completing its charge to "immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat."

Given that the 90 day window they supposedly needed to review those vetting procedures and implement any improvements lapsed last week (and, indeed, the report on DHS's review of the vetting procedures was due over 60 days ago), why is this matter still tying up judicial resources? Surely this was a top priority for the administration and was completed on time.

There shouldn't be any need for a ban at this point. Unless, of course, it was never intended to be temporary anyway and the rationale for it was just a smokescreen.
Click to expand...

What "Muslim ban" was this? As far as I know, such a ban was never attempted. That was pure liberal media spin.
 
joG said:
What "Muslim ban" was this? As far as I know, such a ban was never attempted. That was pure liberal media spin.
Click to expand...

Are you uncomfortable calling something the President did a Muslim ban?

I'm all for a Muslim ban. To get into the Country you have to Profess Jesus Christ. You would have to learn the Christian Doctrine and be able to take tests on it and recite hymns. Hey, they'd have to read the Bible. They could look at it as a cultural study. Then when you go to Muslim Country you have to Chant, "There is no God but Allah and Mohammad is his Prophet and recite Muslim doctrine, Koran and hymns.
 
Greenbeard said:
Trump was never shy about expressing his ultimate intentions:



Talk about pushing the xenophobic and anti-religion narrative!



Which raises the question of why he's still seeking to implement it. The 90 days needed to review our vetting procedures has passed.
Click to expand...


And what went into effect?
 
Fledermaus said:
And what went into effect?
Click to expand...

Nothing, as it turned out.

The question is why the administration is still tying up the courts with this EO if they've completed their review of vetting procedures. There shouldn't be a need for any ban at this point if they were being truthful about the rationale for it.
 
Greenbeard said:
Nothing, as it turned out.

The question is why the administration is still tying up the courts with this EO if they've completed their review of vetting procedures. There shouldn't be a need for any ban at this point if they were being truthful about the rationale for it.
Click to expand...

Actually something did and was blocked.
 
Greenbeard said:
At the time it was introduced, defenders of the ban insisted it was just a temporary measure. The argument was that the administration needed 90 days to review and/or improve vetting policy and procedures, after which the ban would be lifted.

Trump himself indicated as much:


And while the courts blocked the actual ban (specifically sections 3(c), 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), and 5(e) of the EO) from taking effect, I'm not aware of any court blocking sections 3(a) and 3(b)--ostensibly the rationale for the ban--from proceeding. In other words, there's been nothing preventing Homeland Security from completing its charge to "immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat."

Given that the 90 day window they supposedly needed to review those vetting procedures and implement any improvements lapsed last week (and, indeed, the report on DHS's review of the vetting procedures was due over 60 days ago), why is this matter still tying up judicial resources? Surely this was a top priority for the administration and was completed on time.

There shouldn't be any need for a ban at this point. Unless, of course, it was never intended to be temporary anyway and the rationale for it was just a smokescreen.
Click to expand...

What Muslim ban?
 
Greenbeard said:
Trump was never shy about expressing his ultimate intentions:



Talk about pushing the xenophobic and anti-religion narrative!
Click to expand...


Followed by loud cheers from his audience.
 
Greenbeard said:
At the time it was introduced, defenders of the ban insisted it was just a temporary measure. The argument was that the administration needed 90 days to review and/or improve vetting policy and procedures, after which the ban would be lifted.

Trump himself indicated as much:


And while the courts blocked the actual ban (specifically sections 3(c), 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), and 5(e) of the EO) from taking effect, I'm not aware of any court blocking sections 3(a) and 3(b)--ostensibly the rationale for the ban--from proceeding. In other words, there's been nothing preventing Homeland Security from completing its charge to "immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat."

Given that the 90 day window they supposedly needed to review those vetting procedures and implement any improvements lapsed last week (and, indeed, the report on DHS's review of the vetting procedures was due over 60 days ago), why is this matter still tying up judicial resources? Surely this was a top priority for the administration and was completed on time.

There shouldn't be any need for a ban at this point. Unless, of course, it was never intended to be temporary anyway and the rationale for it was just a smokescreen.
Click to expand...

I'd answer the poll question except that there is no Muslim ban in effect and never has been. So can't answer it.
 
Despite Trump calling for and campaigning for a Muslim ban after the San Bernardino attack by announcing his intention to impose a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States, the order does not affect most Muslims world wide.

The travel ban clearly targets Muslims from those nations listed which are majority-Muslim as seen in the order with the mention that priority will be given to refugee claims on the basis of religious persecution, so long as the applicant belongs to a religion that is a minority in their country of origin. In other words, non muslims.
 
KevinKohler said:
What Muslim ban? Citation of said Muslim ban is needed.
Click to expand...

Guiliani admitting that was the purpose and the fact all those countries are vastly muslim sure gives it away
 
Obviously because it looks bad for him politically to drop the case. Politics was the only reason for the EO in the first place and the 90 day thing was just a ruse obviously
 
Greenbeard said:
At the time it was introduced, defenders of the ban insisted it was just a temporary measure. The argument was that the administration needed 90 days to review and/or improve vetting policy and procedures, after which the ban would be lifted.

Trump himself indicated as much:


And while the courts blocked the actual ban (specifically sections 3(c), 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), and 5(e) of the EO) from taking effect, I'm not aware of any court blocking sections 3(a) and 3(b)--ostensibly the rationale for the ban--from proceeding. In other words, there's been nothing preventing Homeland Security from completing its charge to "immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat."

Given that the 90 day window they supposedly needed to review those vetting procedures and implement any improvements lapsed last week (and, indeed, the report on DHS's review of the vetting procedures was due over 60 days ago), why is this matter still tying up judicial resources? Surely this was a top priority for the administration and was completed on time.

There shouldn't be any need for a ban at this point. Unless, of course, it was never intended to be temporary anyway and the rationale for it was just a smokescreen.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a Muslim ban. Tons of Muslims were allowed to enter the country. If it was a Muslim ban, no Muslims would have been allowed into the country.
 
I'd rather it were permanent, but it is self-evident it was temporary. The executive order clearly stated how long it was to be in effect.
 
Who cares? It should be permanent, and expanded to all Muslims.
 
chromium said:
Guiliani admitting that was the purpose and the fact all those countries are vastly muslim sure gives it away
Click to expand...

If the purpose was to ban Muslims, it was not even half assed, it was quarter assed. So many countries not on that list.



Couldn't have ANYTHING to do with terrorism, I'm sure....
 
And we'll continue to ignore that that list was made under the Obama administration.
 
Greenbeard said:
At the time it was introduced, defenders of the ban insisted it was just a temporary measure. The argument was that the administration needed 90 days to review and/or improve vetting policy and procedures, after which the ban would be lifted.

Trump himself indicated as much:


And while the courts blocked the actual ban (specifically sections 3(c), 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), and 5(e) of the EO) from taking effect, I'm not aware of any court blocking sections 3(a) and 3(b)--ostensibly the rationale for the ban--from proceeding. In other words, there's been nothing preventing Homeland Security from completing its charge to "immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat."

Given that the 90 day window they supposedly needed to review those vetting procedures and implement any improvements lapsed last week (and, indeed, the report on DHS's review of the vetting procedures was due over 60 days ago), why is this matter still tying up judicial resources? Surely this was a top priority for the administration and was completed on time.

There shouldn't be any need for a ban at this point. Unless, of course, it was never intended to be temporary anyway and the rationale for it was just a smokescreen.
Click to expand...

What ban?
 
Exquisitor said:
Are you uncomfortable calling something the President did a Muslim ban?

I'm all for a Muslim ban. To get into the Country you have to Profess Jesus Christ. You would have to learn the Christian Doctrine and be able to take tests on it and recite hymns. Hey, they'd have to read the Bible. They could look at it as a cultural study. Then when you go to Muslim Country you have to Chant, "There is no God but Allah and Mohammad is his Prophet and recite Muslim doctrine, Koran and hymns.
Click to expand...

Nope. I would feel fine calling a Muslim ban a Muslim ban independent of the person or country implementing it. But that jerky attempt at spin mouthed in the media about a ban on majority Muslim countries is a lie. That is disturbing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom