More on Trump’s executive order on immigration
If you want to get some clarity on what Trump’s executive order on immigration actually said and what it didn’t say, read this post by William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection. One of the many topics it elucidates is one that was discussed here in the comments section: what about dual nationals who hold passports from European countries? Here’s your answer:
Dual nationals who are U.S. citizens are not affected. The EO only applies to dual nationals from the 7 countries who travel on the passport of another (non-U.S.) country. The Wall Street Journal explains:
It also applies to people who originally hail from those countries but are traveling on a passport issued by any other nation, the statement [by the State Department] notes. That means Iraqis seeking to enter the U.S. on a British passport, for instance, will be barred, according to a U.S. official. British citizens don’t normally require a visa to enter the U.S.
Travelers who have nationality or dual nationality of one of these countries will not be permitted for 90 days to enter the United States or be issued an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa,” the statement said. “Those nationals or dual nationals holding valid immigrant or nonimmigrant visas will not be permitted to enter the United States during this period. Visa interviews will generally not be scheduled for nationals of these countries during this period.
The hysteria from the media and various showboating world leaders—Justin Trudeau comes to mind—continues. Ah, how they love this!
And Yahoo readers who may not have the interest to read anything but the headline of this article get to see the clever headline “Trump talks to world leaders amid alarm over Muslim immigrant policy.” Those who read it might be forgiven for thinking that the leaders themselves are the ones alarmed over his immigration policy. But if you actually read the story, you’ll see that what it describes is that: (a) Trump is talking to world leaders on the phone; and (b) there’s some sort of free-floating alarm in the world (or at least over at Yahoo) over Trump’s immigration policy.
Are these two things connected? Do the leaders of most countries give a rat’s patootie about Trump’s immigration policy? Well, let’s see:
In a flurry of calls that started early in the morning and rounded out an already frantically paced week, Trump spoke with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Russian President Vladimir Putin. He has calls planned for later in the day with French President Francois Hollande and Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.
The conversations gave the US president an early opportunity to explain new policies that have baffled and unnerved much of the rest of the world — particularly his order to temporarily halt all refugee arrivals and those of travelers from seven mainly Muslim countries including war-wracked Syria.
Ah, so he has an opportunity to talk about this policy. And if his immigration order has actually “baffled and unnerved much of the rest of the world”—well then, the rest of the world hasn’t been paying attention, because this was first talked about by Trump and many others on the right (including little old me) over a year ago. Perhaps the authors of the Yahoo piece are “baffled and unnerved” by the executive order. But somehow I can’t quite imagine that Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe—head of a country not known for taking in Middle Eastern refugees (it had six—count ’em, six, and now the plan is to take in 150 “exchange students” over the next five years)—will do much more in response than congratulate Donald Trump for showing some sense.
One country was upset, however, and went on record about it. Iran:
Iran answered in kind by saying it would ban Americans from entering the country, calling Trump’s action insulting.
I guess that all those tourists and refugees from America who are clamoring to get into Iran will just have to wait, then.
By the way, the seven countries chosen by Trump for the temporary immigration moratorium were countries that already had been “designated by Obama as posing special risks for visa entry.”
Did the left contend that Obama was also motivated by a desire to discriminate against Muslims? Of course not. When Obama does it, it’s fine. When Trump does it, it’s this:
The big issue to me is the lack of warning.
People who legally live in a country should not have the rules changed so that they get stranded.
You’d be livid if some country you were visiting said that they were retracting your ability to go after you’d arrived there, having shelled out for what you thought was permission to enter. Now imagine being excluded from your home like that!
I read somewhere that Obama banned Iraqis from coming to the United States for 6 months.
No airport mobs then.
This is the most sensible policy EVER. You can’t have people coming here from Terrorists nations. When did they fall off of the terror nation lists?
Chester Draws:
I’m in complete agreement on that. That was an error by Trump or whoever drafted the EO. But a minor one that affects very few people, and that will be corrected. The basic policy is a good one.
I think this is an excellent policy but terrible execution, based on what I have seen so far. I just don’t understand why this was among the EOs rolled out in the week after inauguration. Seems to me that the immediacy, and lack of advance warning and preparation, virtually assured confusion on the part of air travelers, TSA agents, etc. The slightest weather or computer delays, not to mention possible bomb threats, routinely throw airports into chaos and long lines.
Those who had already boarded a plane when the EO went into effect should have been allowed to land. I have a problem with the sweeping inclusion of current green card holders also. Those people have been through the green card vetting process already, I presume.
i know it’s true that the media and leftists would have freaked out over this EO whenever it came down, but why hand images of long airport lines and teary immigrant families to CNN? Unless Trump planned it this way, as part of his “flood the zone” strategy, IMO it just furthers the impression that he is an erratic leader who doesn’t think things through.
Chester Draws; I sort of agree; but, I think a “warning” would not do either. Too many would try to get in before the deadline.
So, perhaps an exception should have been made for those already “in transit.” But, that would also have the problem how what is considered “in transit”? Someone who is already on a plane to the USA? Of Course! How about those who need to take a couple of flights – one to another country before transferring to a flight to the US? One could argue that they are “in transit” even though they are not yet on a flight to the USA. Or how about someone who already got their visa and paid for a non-refundable ticket; but their initial flight hasn’t taken off yet?
So, Trump either just didn’t consider those examples. Or, I think he did and said let’s just do this and let the chips fall where they may as it has a small impact on those in transit and other folks are going to protest no matter what he does.
Trump is a busy man these days. I didn’t support him but I don’t demand perfection from him either. I expect these problems can be ironed out.
Iran may have jumped the boat on their reaction. How are they going to arrest Americans for “spying” and demand large ransoms if they ban them from entering their country?
There should actually have been no warning. People caught up in this new order in transit are not permanently prevented from traveling- they will be taken up on a case by case basis and allowed to travel within a day or two.
Like I have written many times, Trump is fortunate in his enemies who can be trusted to completely overreact in the most batshit insane manner.
And as we are still in the first month of the new Administration, we’re all reduced to acting like Trump apologists just because we try to bring the truth (alternative facts) into the discussion.
While I haven’t lost friends over this, I have lost a lot of respect I’ve had for real life friends who are liberals. The venom on FB is shocking – if you disagree – you’re not even a Christian. As someone who takes God and Faith very seriously, that’s a pretty significant insult, and it’s being bandied about like nothing.
“That was an error by Trump or whoever drafted the EO. But a minor one” – Neo
“IMO it just furthers the impression that he is an erratic leader who doesn’t think things through.” – CV
I disagree that execution is a minor problem. It is a symptom of CV’s statement.
It may be an agreeable policy (so was obamacare for many), but this example is part and parcel of the chaos we are coming to realize that comes with trump’s election.
Hope it all works itself out.
We’ll see.
.
We may find that similar action will take place on policies we disagree with and/or we inadvertently get caught up in / impacted by, simply because it was overly broad, or not well thought through, and becomes effective with no warning.
Then what?
.
When we cannot trust that the rules won’t suddenly get changed, how are people going to behave?
Guess we are on our way to finding out.
We’ll see.
The Legal Insurrection article is excellent, but has the Administration attempted to make the same points to the interested public? I’ve not really seen any effort to do this, but perhaps I’m watching the wrong interviews.
And as to the assertion that what President Trump has done is illegal, here is a rebuttal from Andrew McCarthy at NRO.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444371/donald-trump-executive-order-ban-entry-seven-muslim-majority-countries-legal
I disagree that execution is a minor problem.
Big Maq: It might be in this case, but overall I agree and that’s what I’m watching for in the next year.
I do see Trump as something of a war-time commander. He has got to hit the beaches hard and fast and not sweat the small stuff.
It won’t be pretty. I gather Trump doesn’t care too much about that.
However, he’d better care about being effective and not being sloppy or getting caught up in personal vendettas.
I think the choice of countries was on a list from Obama.
Francesca:
Yes, a link was included in the post to this, which explains that.
I also wrote more about it today, in this post.
@huxley – even if a majority might oppose the policy and the msm will do its best to give its own narrative spin on it, the least a POTUS could do is explain it to the public and to allow people / nations sufficient time to understand the new rules and to change their plans, without some intelligence that says there is a clear and present danger.
And, we know what trump thinks about the intelligence community.
trump may be behaving like a “war-time commander”, but that should give us pause rather than celebrate.
Shock and awe seems to be the premise.
It is a short step from there to full authoritarian rule.
We’ll see.
Big Maq:
See my latest post on that. Particularly the last few paragraphs.
Sometimes it takes a Godzilla to get something done that needs to be done. The execution was rushed, the roll out could have been more smooth, and the PR more polished. But Godzilla is as Godzilla does. This should have been done way back in 1993.
trump may be behaving like a “war-time commander”, but that should give us pause rather than celebrate.
Big Maq: I can well imagine Trump abusing his power by being petty and sloppy, but somehow I don’t imagine he will do it in a systematic authoritarian way.
@parker – A little too much like…
“on ne saurait faire d’omelette sans casser des Å“ufs”
Also, Godzilla had no regard for anyone but itself.
.
@huxley – authoritarianism is undesirable no matter how it comes about.
I suspect this isn’t just a one off, and just about this particular “emergency”.
.
@Neo – Yes, would have been good for trump to make the case.
Reading the Priebus’ explanation comes across as retroactively justifying what was done. Seen a lot of that with trump’s campaign.
If it is or not, who knows?
For a man who ran on “competence” it is far from that ideal.
.
We seem to be getting in a mode of reflexively defending trump no matter what.
Will this just push us more into uncritical support for trump because we may agree, at some high level, with most of his policies?
If (when?) it goes awry, will anyone speak up?
We’ll See.
Big Maq: I speak up. neo speaks up. The folks at National Review speak up. No doubt others.
I can’t tell how serious this immigration EO business is. It’s not so good if the Trump admin bobbled the ball in the wording leaving some people in the lurch.
OTOH, to whatever extent it is broken, it seems like something which can be fixed without much trouble.
And if explanations are needed, explanations can be given — even easier.
Pandora Says:
January 29th, 2017 at 11:05 am
Iran may have jumped the boat on their reaction. How are they going to arrest Americans for “spying” and demand large ransoms if they ban them from entering their country?
* * *
If Iran objects to something Trump does, I take that as a sign he is doing something right.
Yancey Ward Says:
January 29th, 2017 at 12:11 pm..
Like I have written many times, Trump is fortunate in his enemies who can be trusted to completely overreact in the most batshit insane manner.
* * *
Dilbert’s puppet-master agrees with you.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156399716951/outrage-dilution
“I’m having a fun time watching President Trump flood the news cycle with so many stories and outrages that no one can keep up. Here’s how the math of persuasion works in this situation:
1 outrage out of 3 headlines in a week: Bad Persuasion
25 outrages out of 25 headlines in a week: Excellent Persuasion
At the moment there are so many outrages, executive orders, protests, and controversies that none of them can get enough oxygen in our brains. I can’t obsess about problem X because the rest of the alphabet is coming at me at the same time. ”
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156544714786/the-canadian-option
“Canada also gives us a test case to compare to America’s plan. In five years we can check back and see how it turned out for them. If it worked, we can reassess. Until then we obviously need to wall-off Canada. But that’s another topic.
Now that I think about it, the Middle East has a lot of space too. Remind me again why Muslim countries are banning Muslim immigrants. Is it because they are Hitler?”
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156532225711/the-persuasion-filter-and-immigration
“The Persuasion Filter says Trump is negotiating with his critics on the extreme right at the same time as he is negotiating with his critics on the left. He needed one “opening offer” that would set up both sides for the next level of persuasion. And he found it. You just saw it.”
Big Maq,
With respect, I suggest you look up presidential authority on issues related to immigration and who is allowed to enter the USA. Many presidents have restricted entry for many decades. As the exalted messiah notes “I won”. Elections, whether you or I approve of the outcome or not, have consequences. I accepted the Barack Hussein Obama was my president, although I did not like it and criticized him repeatedly. as I did all presidents going back to 1972 when I was allowed to vote.
I promise I will criticize Trump. So ar I see little to cricitize beyond his style. But even that does not negate the substance. I am reluctant to admit, I have only minor objections. Yes, djt is a loose cannon, but compared to whar?
If you want to get some clarity on what Trump’s executive order on immigration actually said and what it didn’t say, read this post by William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection
why not read the actual EO? why play pick the person who will tell me something rather than picking yourself to know?
so dumb… no wonder we are all in the crapper with information, we shop to find what we like says what we like the way we like, then wonder why we dont know the truth? sorry, but the truth is long, not short. the truth is not entertaining.. the truth is boring and makes you squirm and did i say its not entertaining?
Artfldgr:
No, not “so dumb.” If you actually follow the link to that LI post, it makes both options possible. There is a summary there of the points, with analysis from a legal expert. So if people feel uncertain of what it all signifies (not everyone is good at reading and understanding long legal documents) and want to get CLARITY on it (that’s the phrase I used) they can go to a trusted legally knowledgeable source. In addition, the LI post contains a link to the EO itself, quite early in the post. Therefore, if a person decides he or she wants to read the EO, that person doesn’t have to search for it but can use the link at the LI post. It’s not an either/or thing; it helps to read both, actually, and both are available through that LI post.
Fortunately, humans are going to be destroyed by something other than Godzilla.