The seven nations targeted for new visitation restrictions by President Trump on Friday all have something in common: They are places he does not appear to have any business interests.
The executive order he signed Friday bars all entry for the next 90 days by travelers from Syria, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia and Libya. Excluded from the lists are several majority-Muslim nations where the Trump Organization is active and which in some cases have also faced troublesome issues with terrorism.
According to the text of the order, the restriction applies to countries that have already been excluded from programs allowing people to travel to the United States without a visa because of concerns over terrorism. Hewing closely to nations already named as terrorism concerns elsewhere in law might have allowed the White House to avoid angering some more powerful and wealthy majority Muslim allies, such as Egypt.
But without divesting from his company, as bipartisan ethics experts had advised, Trump is now facing questions about whether he designed the new rules with his own business at least partly in mind.
(excerpt of radio interview with Michel Martin, NPR radio host, and NPR senior business editor Marilyn Geewax) ...
GEEWAX: Well, according to his campaign financial filings, he does not have business interests in those countries where he's imposing these new restrictions. Now, it's fair to point out that these countries do have very serious problems. They've had civil wars. They have extremist groups there, and that raises concerns. And those are reflected in U.S. Immigration vetting systems that we have in place already.
So that list has raised the hackles of ethics experts. They fear that this list was shaped at least in part by Trump's desire to remain on good terms with the governments where he is doing business.
MARTIN: Tell us a bit more about what these ethics experts are saying.
GEEWAX: One of them, for example, spoke with NPR. That's Norm Eisen. He's a former ethics adviser to President Obama, and he's a fellow now at Brookings Institution. He says that it looks to him like Trump was singling out countries that did not pay him tribute. That was his words.
i am wondering whether all Muslims (Islam) will be considered to be one religion for the purpose of the executive order. If one is a Sunni in a Shiite-dominated country, does that person qualify for a refugee preference?
Yeah, I suppose they could exclude Eastern Orthodox Christians and even Catholics, given the current Pope.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jan 29, 2017 - 2:46pm
haresfur wrote:
If there is a limit on number of refugees accepted, I actually don't mind factoring religion as one of the threats that affect the prioritization. It is complicated though, The Washington Post indicated that Lebanon is encouraging Christians to stay there to preserve their presence in the middle east.
i am wondering whether all Muslims (Islam) will be considered to be one religion for the purpose of the executive order. If one is a Sunni in a Shiite-dominated country, does that person qualify for a refugee preference?
That, and making sure they answer "Christian" when asked what mythology they subscribe to.
If there is a limit on number of refugees accepted, I actually don't mind factoring religion as one of the threats that affect the prioritization. It is complicated though, The Washington Post indicated that Lebanon is encouraging Christians to stay there to preserve their presence in the middle east.
I keep asking this question. What does Extreme Vetting mean? How is it different from the rigorous screening process currently in place? Who does it? What assets do they have available? Where does the information come from? Who pays for it? Wouldn't that require legislation?
During the campaign, in a speech in Youngstown, Ohio, Trump called for “extreme, extreme vetting.” He said the extreme vetting would be designed to keep out anyone who does not share “American values” and who is not prepared to “embrace a tolerant American society.”
Trump said that until such a test is in place, America should suspend immigration from Muslim countries.
Good question. Maybe waterboarding anyone seeking asylum?
That is exactly what I voted for. People who are not afraid to be honest and tell the truth about the big picture. I would love to see the entire unedited interviews, but I can already fill in the blanks and know the context that these things were said in.
The first states the goal. The current political establishment must go. The second states the reality for what comes if we continue with the establishment kicking the can down the road till it hits the metaphorical wall and the riots start. Not saying he wants it, just stating the obvious truth, in a straight forward way.
Yeah, Trump is a bully. He's making everyone eat their metaphorical vegetables.
Did you vote for Steve Bannon getting placed on the National Security Council as a principal, while the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence now only get to show up at NSC meetings when someone (?) thinks they might have something relevant to say? I ask this question because Trumpers did promise to make us safer from his vision of violence and carnage and I'm pretty sure Steve-o isn't going to help with that.
You might want to see the political establishment blown up, but the rest of us would like to have our skin remain intact.
NoEnzLefttoSplit makes a very good point. All these temper tantrums from the hard right about draining the swamp and changing the status quo are not only childish but dangerous if there's no credible or even coherent plan for substitutes. Trump likely isn't an anarchist but his lack of planning ahead makes me wonder.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jan 29, 2017 - 1:54pm
kurtster wrote:
That is exactly what I voted for. People who are not afraid to be honest and tell the truth about the big picture. I would love to see the entire unedited interviews, but I can already fill in the blanks and know the context that these things were said in.
The first states the goal. The current political establishment must go. The second states the reality for what comes if we continue with the establishment kicking the can down the road till it hits the metaphorical wall and the riots start. Not saying he wants it, just stating the obvious truth, in a straight forward way.
Yeah, Trump is a bully. He's making everyone eat their metaphorical vegetables.
maybe they are good at blowing it up. Are they able to build something better? Sort of like the difference between leading the revolution and then having to govern. an example: for 6-7 years now, we have heard many conservatives and Republicans state that the ACA has to be repealed. Now that it appears they have the power to repeal it, it appears that they do not yet have a replacement system ready to go; heck, it appears they do not even have agreement on a concept for replacement.
That is exactly what I voted for. People who are not afraid to be honest and tell the truth about the big picture. I would love to see the entire unedited interviews, but I can already fill in the blanks and know the context that these things were said in.
The first states the goal. The current political establishment must go. The second states the reality for what comes if we continue with the establishment kicking the can down the road till it hits the metaphorical wall and the riots start. Not saying he wants it, just stating the obvious truth, in a straight forward way.
Yeah, Trump is a bully. He's making everyone eat their metaphorical vegetables.
I'm going to refrain from any one of a number of knee-jerk responses I have to this. Instead of that, I'll ask you a question. If this is what you voted for, what is your goal after achieving this destruction, presuming it succeeds.. What are your end goals after dismantling the state?
I keep asking this question. What does Extreme Vetting mean? How is it different from the rigorous screening process currently in place? Who does it? What assets do they have available? Where does the information come from? Who pays for it? Wouldn't that require legislation?
During the campaign, in a speech in Youngstown, Ohio, Trump called for “extreme, extreme vetting.” He said the extreme vetting would be designed to keep out anyone who does not share “American values” and who is not prepared to “embrace a tolerant American society.”
Trump said that until such a test is in place, America should suspend immigration from Muslim countries.
And so here we are.
Now what are "American values?"
Be specific. Tell me what American values are. Give me a list. A list that applies to every American. One we all agree on.
Come now, this should be easy. This is the basis of the whole damned thing. So, tell me, who decides what is American and what isn't? And what is it that makes up an American? Give me a specific list, point by point. Show your work.
Now — NOW — once you have that list, you tell me how to TEST each potential immigrant for those values.
What?
No. I'm dead serious. You tell me how you test a human being for ... what? Love of baseball, mom, and Apple Pie? Tolerance? Patriotism?
Tell me how you do that.
Please, by all means you tell me how to do that. BE SPECIFIC.
And while you're at it, show me how your tests are different, better, more effective, than what we currently have in place. Where does the information come from? What assets do the Chekas have at their disposal? How will they be trained, the Chekas? Who pays for it? Does this new system of Extreme Vetting require legislation? If not? WHY not?
These questions seem to me not unreasonable.
They should be put to President Trump and his Administration by the Press and hammered hard until the citizens of the United States get some goddamned answers.
That is exactly what I voted for. People who are not afraid to be honest and tell the truth about the big picture. I would love to see the entire unedited interviews, but I can already fill in the blanks and know the context that these things were said in.
The first states the goal. The current political establishment must go. The second states the reality for what comes if we continue with the establishment kicking the can down the road till it hits the metaphorical wall and the riots start. Not saying he wants it, just stating the obvious truth, in a straight forward way.
Yeah, Trump is a bully. He's making everyone eat their metaphorical vegetables.
