Immigration

Reversal on Green-Card Holders Highlights Casual Cruelty of Trump's Immigration Order

The president tramples innocent people in his rush to fulfill an ill-advised campaign promise.

|

NBC News

The most revealing thing about the executive order that President Trump signed on Friday, which suspended admission of all refugees for 120 days, blocked Syrian refugees indefinitely, and banned travelers with passports from any of seven Muslim-majority countries, is how casually he hurt innocent people to score political points. Over the weekend, hundreds of people who had permission to enter the United States as students, researchers, tourists, refugees, immigrants, and legal permanent residents were stopped from boarding their flights or detained after arriving at U.S. airports because of the new restrictions. Thousands more were left in limbo, their plans to move, visit children or ailing parents, take a job, or attend school suddenly canceled or on hold, all based on one man's whim. The Trump administration's shifting position on the order's implications for legal permanent residents from the seven designated countries shows how little thought went into a policy that has upended and endangered so many lives.

Trump's executive order bars entry, except with special permission, of all "aliens" from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The New York Times, citing "two American officials," reports that Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly "had suggested green card holders be exempted from the order," but presidential advisers Stephen Bannon and Stephen Miller "overruled him." Hence legal permanent residents, including at least a few who were on the verge of becoming American citizens, were among the travelers who were stopped from flying to the U.S. or detained after arriving. By Sunday criticism of that policy had prompted an embarrassing reversal. "The order is not affecting green card holders moving forward," Trump's chief of staff, Reince Priebus, announced on Meet the Press yesterday. Also on Sunday, Secretary Kelly issued this statement:

In applying the provisions of the president's executive order, I hereby deem the entry of lawful permanent residents to be in the national interest.

Accordingly, absent the receipt of significant derogatory information indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare, lawful permanent resident status will be a dispositive factor in our case-by-case determinations.

Whether legal permanent residents were covered by Trump's ban was no small detail, since they include half a million people who would either be stranded abroad or forced to remain in the United States for the next three months. Furthermore, excluding green-card holders is more legally problematic than excluding refugees or visitors, and it was especially controversial among critics of the order, including members of Trump's party. "It's unacceptable when even legal permanent residents are being detained or turned away at airports and ports of entry," Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said on Saturday. Yesterday Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) agreed. "This vetting proposal itself needed more vetting," he said in a press release. "More scrutiny of those traveling from war-torn countries to the United States is wise. But this broad and confusing order seems to ban legal, permanent residents with 'green cards,' and might turn away Iraqis, for example, who were translators and helped save lives of Americans troops and who could be killed if they stay in Iraq."

Since Trump's avowed aim is preventing terrorist attacks in the United States by improving the vetting of foreign visitors, including legal permanent residents in the order never made much sense, given the formidable process required to obtain a green card. It is also hard to justify the ban on refugees, who undergo a rigorous screening process that takes up to two years. That process seems to work pretty well. Cato Institute immigration policy analyst Alex Nowrasteh calculates that "the chance of an American being murdered in a terrorist attack caused by a refugee is 1 in 3.64 billion per year."

The security rationale for picking the seven countries covered by Trump's order is rather hazy as well. "Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001," the Times notes, citing University of North Carolina sociologist Charles Kurzman, "no one has been killed in the United States in a terrorist attack by anyone who emigrated from or whose parents emigrated from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen." Most of the 9/11 perpetrators (15 of 19) came from Saudi Arabia, while the rest were from Egypt, Lebanon, and the United Arab Emirates. None of those countries is covered by Trump's order.

"The reason we chose those seven countries was those were the seven countries that both the Congress and the Obama administration identified as being the seven countries that were most identifiable with dangerous terrorism taking place in their country," Priebus said on Face the Nation yesterday. "Now, you can point to other countries that have similar problems, like Pakistan and others. Perhaps we need to take it further."

As to why Trump's half-baked plan had to take effect immediately, interrupting hundreds of journeys that had already begun, Priebus said terrorists might have taken advantage of any delay. "Some people have suggested [that] maybe we should have given everyone a three-day warning," he said. "But that would just mean that a terrorist would just move up their travel plans by three days." Taking Priebus at his word, that theoretical risk of a very low-probability event outweighed the certain chaos that would be caused by imposing the restrictions without warning.

The chaos was compounded by a lack of consultation and training. Trump signed the order in the middle of a briefing explaining it to Kelly, head of the department charged with carrying it out. "Customs and border control [CBP] officials got instructions at 3 a.m. Saturday," the Times reports, "and some arrived at their posts later that morning still not knowing how to carry out the president's orders." The ACLU complaint that led to a federal judge's order blocking the removal of detained travelers, which was filed on behalf of two Iraqi men who were granted visas based on work for the U.S. military, suggests the extent of the confusion. The complaint says that when lawyers for the men asked CBP agents who could explain the new policy, the response was, "Call Mr. Trump."

Priebus argues that Trump erred on the side of caution by taking swift action to prevent terrorism. "President Trump is not willing to take chances on this subject," he said on Face the Nation. But that stance means Trump is willing to cause wide, predictable, and potentially lethal damage in exchange for security benefits that are speculative and possibly nonexistent. The questionable logic and haphazard implementation of his order reflect a disregard for the people he might trample in his rush to fulfill an impulsive campaign promise.

NEXT: Today Is Fred Korematsu's Birthday, Which Seems About Right

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So the author would support Trumps actions if he had including some more meetings and training?

    1. More TOP MEN is always the answer.

      1. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do

        =========================== http://www.4dayjobs.com

    2. yes, that inference makes SO much sense.

  2. Let’s just leave the Middle East all together . Let these people settle things by themselves.

  3. “””””Which was filed on behalf of two Iraqi men who were granted visas based on work for the U.S. military,”””

    The US military is still in Iraq, why are these two being allowed into the US while there is still Americans fighting in Iraq?

    Bring American troops home, leave the Iraqis in Iraq.

    1. Especially the loyal translators and assistants that are dead men when they return to their villages for assisting US military, right? Fuck ’em!

      1. It seems to work for cops and their drug informants.

      2. Right. Fuck em

      3. They are suppose to be loyal to Iraq. And if they don’t want someone like ISIS running the place they need to fight them.

        Coming to the US does not help the US, we already have lots of taxi drivers.

        1. They won’t be taxi drivers’ they’ll be interpretors for all the other people we let in, because borders are for chumps and actual countries.

        2. Supposed to be loyal to Iraq? says who? Loyal to the government? The ground? His tribe? His sect? Who exactly is he supposed to fight against? The smartest thing to do is GTFO.

        3. There was an article talking about how Mexico has never changed because we are acting as their pressure release. I should see if I can find it.

          All the people fed up with Mexico come here, rather than effecting change in their own country. This is why their government is pissed about the border wall and Trump’s immigration stances. It could spell trouble for their current power structure.

          1. Pretty sure that was a Razorfist rant on Youtube.

          2. There was an article talking about how Mexico has never changed because we are acting as their pressure release. I should see if I can find it.

            The migration from Mexico into the United States has been dwarfed by the net population growth of Mexico itself. It may bet true that dissidents leave the country and come here, but if so, then they would have been in a shrinking minority had they stayed.

            This argument is weak. It is possible that migration from Mexico into the U.S. has played a part in shaping the politics of Mexico, but it is implausible as the sole, primary, or even a substantial factor in said politics. Moreover, if the history of Latin America in general is any indication, a small vocal minority in favor of liberalization almost always loses out to a voting majority that favors redistribution.

          3. “All the people fed up with Mexico come here, rather than effecting change in their own country”

            It’s more than that, and its true for any ‘refugee’ situation. Refugees amount to a competence drain on the country they are leaving. The morons, losers, apathic, corrupt, lazy, incompetents are less likely to emigrate than the competent, intelligent, worldly, professional, educated, driven people.
            Which is a big reason why immigrants are great for the country they move to.

            Mexico advances less quickly because it lost a large number of the people who could have helped institute that change. And it appears to be getting worse. More cartel violence = greater drive to move north for those that can = more cartel power, and so on, until you have a failed state.
            Syria is doomed for generations. Because the Western world allowed an enormous wave of the competent to leave Syria. who is going to rebuild?

            It’s a big moral question which too many ignore. By allowing in a wave of refugees, am I causing a decline in the future potential for those that remained?

        4. Give up you life for the good of the State.

  4. The security rationale for picking the seven countries covered by Trump’s order is rather hazy as well.

    Not hazy at all. “Countries bombed or sabotaged by Obama’s administration.”

      1. I heard your on some kinda list. I’m jelly.

        1. Relax, you’re probably on it too. As are the rest of us Reason Facists. Only the One True Libertarian?, Mike Hihn, is not on that list.

          1. I thought it was Shreek, he passed the libertarian litmus test by 110%.

            1. Shreek is that sour?

    1. +7 oBOMBa

    2. Some of them countries that Obama banned refugees from too.

      http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/…..d-nothing/

      1. But Trump is a meanie, Obama is the light bringer.

    3. Aren’t those the countries Obama flagged as high risk? Why not ask him?

  5. That ill-advised campaign promise won him the Presidency.

    1. I agree.

      I’m not a Trump fan, but the man is fulfilling campaign promises. Are pols not supposed to do that?

      1. They’re in shock.

        It’s a rather unprecedented moment.

          1. Well, since “banning Muslims” turned out to be “temporarily banning people other than persecuted minorities (and, on second thought, green card holders) from seven (out of fifty-ish) Muslim nations that were flagged by the previous administration as particularly high risk”, that was probably good advice.

      2. Are pols not supposed to do that?

        No, of course not. They are supposed to pretend they never made them and carry on with the same old bullshit. Judging by history, that’s how it’s supposed to work.

      3. “I’m not a Trump fan, but the man is fulfilling campaign promises. Are pols not supposed to do that?”

        Presidents are supposed to obey their oath of office to “…preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

  6. Looking forward to all the “libertarians” who are going to comment here.

    1. Turn that ship around, Greekie, we don’t need your kind here. You people reek of retsina and octopus.

        1. SUCKER!

          1. I swear I’m not Greek! (Shit, my cover is blown, resumes 2 daily showers and hides lamb dinner)

            1. I’m sending jesse in to check your anal integrity. That should settle matters.

            2. Ease up on the cologne too.

    2. As a libertarian, and not an anarchist, I believe one of the legitimate functions of government is to control non-citizen access to our borders. We can debate on which polices are good or bad for the country.

    3. As a libertarian, and not an anarchist, I believe one of the legitimate functions of government is to control non-citizen access to our borders. We can debate on which polices are good or bad for the country.

  7. But that stance means Trump is willing to cause wide, predictable, and potentially lethal damage in exchange for security benefits that are speculative and possibly nonexistent. The questionable logic and haphazard implementation of his order reflect a disregard for the people he might trample in his rush to fulfill an impulsive campaign promise.

    How can it lead to ‘lethal damage’?

    Also, I don’t see the problem. He made a promise, people voted for him and now that he’s fulfilling it, it’s bad?

    I thought the problem with politicians was they always break their promises and now comes this guy – rightly or wrongly – who says what he said he was going to do and people act surprised?

    1. I think your quotes are off, I was about to challenge you on almost the same phrases you challenged the article on.

      1. Sullum: “But that stance means Trump is willing to cause wide, predictable, and potentially lethal damage in exchange for security benefits that are speculative and possibly nonexistent. The questionable logic and haphazard implementation of his order reflect a disregard for the people he might trample in his rush to fulfill an impulsive campaign promise.”

        My bad.

    2. Yeah I’m not exactly shocked about this – and it’s actually a pull back from his previous campaign promise.

      Trump’s Executive Order on Refugees ? Separating Fact from Hysteria

      So, what did Trump do? Did he implement his promised Muslim ban? No, far from it. He backed down dramatically from his campaign promises and instead signed an executive order dominated mainly by moderate refugee restrictions and temporary provisions aimed directly at limiting immigration from jihadist conflict zones.

      Let’s analyze the key provisions, separate the fact from the hysteria, and introduce just a bit of historical perspective.

      First, the order temporarily halts refugee admissions for 120 days to improve the vetting process, then caps refugee admissions at 50,000 per year. Outrageous, right? Not so fast. Before 2016, when Obama dramatically ramped up refugee admissions, Trump’s 50,000 stands roughly in between a typical year of refugee admissions in George W. Bush’s two terms and a typical year in Obama’s two terms. The chart below, from the Migration Policy Institute, is instructive:

      1. The ban is in place while the Department of Homeland Security determines 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.” It could, however, be extended or expanded depending on whether countries are capable of providing the requested information.

        The ban, however, contains an important exception: “Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.” In other words, the secretaries can make exceptions ? a provision that would, one hopes, fully allow interpreters and other proven allies to enter the U.S. during the 90-day period.

        1. I read that article, and was really annoyed by it. Yes, there is a lot of hyperbole out there, but there is a lot of hand waving on the right. The biggest problem was the stance on Green Card holders. In that article, they give a short paragraph to that issue, saying that they would be handled on a “case by case” basis. As if a person who has gone through the lengthy process of obtaining a green card should rest at ease that they may have a possibility of getting through the border when spending thousands of dollars on a work or personal trip.

          I would have grudgingly accepted the temporary visa ban, but fucking with the travel plans of legal residents was a Big Deal (TM) and shame on French, and other people on the right, for giving it such short shrift in his article. It not only screwed with thousands of green card holders, but their families who were facing parents not getting home over the weekend, and even citizens like my wife who spent the weekend upending all of our plans so she could plan a trip to Europe to cover for a colleague at her company who couldn’t travel on his key project for fear of being locked out of the country.

    3. Also, I don’t see the problem. He made a promise, people voted for him and now that he’s fulfilling it, it’s bad?

      Would you say the same if a politician made good on his promise to institute more gun control?

      1. How does this violate a fundamental and well documented right? Because gun control measures would.

        That’s really a false analogy, no?

        1. H&R libertarians believe rights have to be “well documented.”

          1. No, but the right to self defense is well documented. The right to immigrate freely without a vetting process designed to maximize security is not.

            Or am I wrong?

            1. If documentation of rights is irrelevant, it’s irrelevant.

              1. But self-defense is a right. Unfettered access to another nation is not. Noting the documentation just jibes it with American law, which, whether you like it or not, is a pillar of our society.

                1. Just stop sloopy. People that think actually wanting to vet whom gets into your house is a crazy idea will never see a problem with anything but a free for all. And then they will blame you when that free for all goes wrong.

                2. You don’t decide what my rights are.

                3. Freedom of movement and freedom of contract are well documented rights. This fucks rather heavily with both. You are arguing that there is some collective right to “security” that naturally supersedes these two rights. If the collective right to security supersedes the individual rights to movement and freedom of contract, then it supersedes the right to self defense.

                  I agree that a nation must have rules and regulations to smooth over where individual rights conflict, but if you are going to argue about individual rights, you should at least be consistent about it. All the time, we try to counter gun grabbers arguments by analogizing with similar restraints placed on, say, free speech. (“What if setting up a newspaper required a background check?”)

                  I know that it is hard to see the tables flipped on this, but it is consistent to ask why some “collective” right to security somehow allows serious infringement on individual rights- whether freedom of press, freedom to carry or freedom to move/contract. If your only argument is that the Constitution “well documents” our right to bear arms, but not the right to assemble peaceably, to contract with one another, or to move, then you are arguing that rights are not ours, but granted by a document.

                  1. *a mic was dropped*

                  2. Freedom of movement is not a right.

                    It exists nowhere.

                    No life form on the planet simply allows a competing life form to move in and set up shop.

                    1. You block people from moving into your city or state. Obviously freedom of movement does exist to a certain extent in certain places.

                    2. No life form on the planet simply allows a competing life form to move in and set up shop.

                      So? Most life forms that adhere to your maxim will also aggressively destroy competing life forms. Should we also say that there is no right to life, because men, animals, and bacteria kill?

                      You can make a practical argument against freedom of movement across national borders, or perhaps a conceptual argument against freedom of movement altogether, but starting with the behavior of “life forms” is absurd. Mankind has intellect and agency above and beyond the brutish instinctual aggression of the natural world.

            2. Slightly off-topic, but with God’s Own Prohibitionists tag-teaming with CPUSA to deride the nonaggression pledge, I’ve been trying to render it intelligible even to them:
              Retaliatory force goood. Initiating aggression baaad!

    4. How can it lead to ‘lethal damage’?

      Because some number of people who were affected by this were doing so under circumstances where their lives were in danger in their country of origin, such that suddenly and unexpectedly sending them back and telling them to wait there for at least 90 days (after they’ve very likely given up their jobs, housing, any personal transportation, etc. as part of leaving) is going to at minimum inflict a severe hardship on them and in at least some cases increase their exposure to potential violence? For example, do you think it would have been healthy for those two Iraqi military translators to suddenly get dumped back in Iraq for 90 days? (And yes, they were lucky enough not to be sent back, but we don’t know the stories of all the people affected so far.)

    5. Are pols not supposed to do that?

      It shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. But if you thought it was bad as a campaign promise, I’d expect you to think it’s bad now.

      I thought the problem with politicians was they always break their promises and now comes this guy – rightly or wrongly – who says what he said he was going to do and people act surprised?

      And here I thought the problem with politicians is that they think they have the legitimate power to take people’s money and tell them what to do.

    6. “Also, I don’t see the problem. He made a promise, people voted for him and now that he’s fulfilling it, it’s bad?”

      He also made a campaign promise to order the military to murder the family members of alleged terrorists. If he fulfills that promise, is it bad?

      1. Good point. But all I really care about is how Executive Branch policy jibes with the LP platform. If poorly, I run with that to solicit converts from the parties that opposed him and lost, and explain the law-changing properties of spoiler votes. Looter-fights are kinda like cockfights. Better to be an unwilling spectator than a participant with skin in their games.

  8. Trump’s goal isn’t to prevent terrorist attacks – it’s to incite them. He’s trying to give ISIS excuses to radicalize more people. Ironically he will only end up radicalizing his own white supremacist base. Also I have no problem with a muslim ban if we simultaneously agreed to stop killing them. Alas, Trump is stepping up the droning – on the same countries he’s banning.

    Why

    1. Why? Because TrumPutin wants to use the resulting violence as a pretext to nuke the middle east and disrupt supply to boost prices in their home countries. (Yes he says ‘take their oil’ but this is secondary.)

    2. Yes – submit to Islam, pay the jiyza, live in dhimmitude , and you won’t have to worry about ISIS.

      1. ^^^^THIS^^^^

  9. Out of curiosity and serious question, did Reason write about it when Obama was dong it?

        1. Take it easy, sloop. You’re liable to get a black eye.

        2. But enough about a certain cop that tackles old ladies.

          1. Fuck, man don’t get me going. I’m trying to deal with that rationally.

            BTW, if anybody wants to pile on in the comments section.

            Or in this one.

            The stories are full of inaccuracies, to say the least. Even the writer told me in an email that she thought it was excessive and the game should have been stopped.

      1. By “it”, you mean Cecily Strong.

  10. These days a can’t tell the difference between Libertarians and SJWs by their reactions to the God-Emperor. I’m looking forward to more EOs this week.

    1. by their reactions to the God-Emperor

      You shut your mouth. Trump isn’t even worthy of licking the God Emperor of Mankind’s golden, ork gut-encrusted boots.

      1. You mean the Custoes still haven’t gotten around to cleaning those boots? What sort of household guard are those gilded bastards?

        1. That’s servitor work, duh.

          1. Then have someone fix the blasted servitors. It’s been ages since Ullanor.

  11. The questionable logic and haphazard implementation of his order reflect…

    The SOP of the US government.

  12. So u open borders libertarians? Are you inviting any rapefugees in to your own home? Didnt think so. The rest of us have to risk all these discivilizational fucks for your virtue signaling.

    1. Pretty sure you can’t even get and keep a Syrian rapefugee as a pet these days even if you wanted to.

    2. There’s a Syrian refugee family in my town right now. Seem a’right. Their English isn’t bad and the husband’s employed. North Americans do have the benefit of an ocean to help separate out the more…’vigorous’ of the refugee populations (and by ‘refugees’ I mean ‘young Middle Eastern men who want a free ride”).

      The husband doesn’t get hockey though, which means we need to abandon him in the tundra.

      1. The Greenland to Maritime passage is completely unpolished. Nunavut will be hardest hit tho

          1. …it’s unpolished as well, rough as a Hihnny retort…

    3. Are you inviting any rapefugees in to your own home?

      If President Trump suddenly released all nonviolent drug offenders, would you invite them into your own home?

      1. I’ll take em, but they can only be the rapey kind. No dociles need apply.

  13. Don’t worry about these Refugees, I hear Canada has a sudden opening for more members of a Mosque. They can go there.

    1. The names are still being witheld. I’m starting to suspect my initial “Intra-faith sectarianism” guess might be correct.

      1. yeah, DailyFail is already running one of the shooters was of “Moroccan Origin”

        1. Interesting. I heard it referred to an act of terror and a hate crime on the radio this morning so I jusr assumed they were white. Maybe the radio person was assuming as well.

          1. There’s this big desire for shooters to turn out to be white for some* odd reason.

            (*not really unknown)

        2. These people understand Islam so little they don’t get that they fight each other just as much as they do the “evil” West.

          1. I wonder if the issue isn’t that violence is the de facto SOP for these types whenever they are not getting their way.

    2. That’s a bit harsh.

  14. You know who else banned Syrian refugees from entering their country(s)?

    1. The leader of every country in the Mideast excepting Jordan?

      1. You’re forgetting Lebanon and Turkey, which also received a lot of refugees. I remember reading an article a year or more ago about how the massive influx of people into Lebanon (a tiny country) was causing major problems for the Lebanese due food and housing shortages causing prices to rise dramatically for everyone. And Turkey has taken in the majority of the refugees, many of whom they’ve been housing in camps at great expense.

    2. Israel [period]

    3. South Pole Penguins.

  15. You no who else banned a certain group during war time? Hint,they were from Europe.

    1. The Senate and People of Rome?

    2. Franklin Delano Roosevelt (D-NY)?

      1. Yes,and it was the Jews in WW2

    3. Stalin?

      1. No he moved them out of their countries to Siberia. But,I like the way you think.

  16. Big problems at airports were caused by Delta computer outage, protesters and the tears of Senator Schumer. Secretary Kelly said that all is going well with very few problems. MAKE AMERICA SAFE AGAIN!

    Yes, Trump is blaming the protesters. He is setting the stage for a conflict. Of course, it will fizzle. Law enforcement and the security industries are outmatched by average decent Americans. This will backfire bigly – other countries will follow our lead.

  17. When 9/11 happened my wife decided that she had better upgrade from her green card to real citizenship. I thought she was crazy at the time because I couldn’t imagine fucking with green card holders.

    Guess I was wrong. Guess all that shit you go through with immigration to get that green card doesn’t count for shit.

    1. Government can always add more shit. Its what they are good at,

      1. It’s shit all the way down.

  18. But that stance means Trump is willing to cause wide, predictable, and potentially lethal damage in exchange for security benefits that are speculative and possibly nonexistent.

    Rephrasing that: But that stance means Trump is willing to cause wide and speculatively lethal damage in exchange for security benefits that are potentially nonexistent.

    Strange. They mean the same fucking thing, but with less pants-shitting!

    1. there can never be enough pants shitting, am I right Mr. Hihn?

  19. America embraces and protects its minorities and re-affirms fundamental rights for all. Welcome to Dajjal’s Libertarian Utopia. I shall dub it, “New Somalia”.

  20. I see we have several bigots here who think dressing up their ignorance and fear as anti-Cosmo, anti-SJW posturing makes them less pathetic.

    As our president would say, SAD!

  21. Good morning my sweet and clever little anarch0-frankentrumpkensteins. You just woke up in New Somalia. Make yourselves comfortable, you might be here a while. 🙂

  22. It’s going to be one of those days.

    1. You knew the Trumpocalyplse was gonna be this way. Our brave media have been reeling us so for 11 weeks now.

  23. “Thousands more were left in limbo, their plans to move, visit children or ailing parents, take a job, or attend school suddenly canceled or on hold, all based on one man’s whim. ”

    1. They were not left in limbo. They could go back to their home country.
    2. It is not one man’s whim. Trump won the election, so tens of millions of people voted for him to implement tighter border restrictions.

    1. They were not left in limbo. They could go back to their home country.

      The EO says the suspension is for 90 days. Thus, even if they go back to their home country — where many of them have likely quit their jobs, given up their apartments, sold their personal transportation, etc. — they have at least 90 days where they don’t whether they will be able to enter or re-enter (the order was being used to exclude people who were already residents here and just happened to be out of the country at the time the order went into effect, remember?). That’s a perfect example of “limbo” — “an uncertain period of awaiting a decision or resolution; an intermediate state or condition.”

      1. And this ban didn’t just include people traveling here for the first time. There are people trapped overseas with families and jobs here in the states- who were legally working and living here- who cannot come back. Prior to the reversal on green cards, people returning from a business trip were denied entry. What were they supposed to do? Just camp in a hotel for 90 days? Book another flight to their home country where they don’t have jobs, family or homes just to wait for 90 days?

        Beyond green card holders, there are also people with other work visas who were denied travel, impacting their business here in the US. This wasn’t just targeted at that small number of people on a boat to this country. It impacted people who have been working in the US for months or years. And yes, it put them in limbo.

  24. Wife just turned on the tv. There is Chucky Shumer wiping away a tear and sniffling because Trump’s EO was mean spirited. Mean spirited? This makes Chucky cry? Hell, we have lost with guys like him for top men.

    Here is what is mean spirited: Walking into a bar with a rifle and shooting as many total strangers as you can. Flying airliners full of innocents into buildings full of innocents and incinerating everyone. That is mean spirited. Telling people there is a temporary stay on travel is not mean spirited.

    Let me tell you idiots something (Sullum and Shumer). All over the world the jihadists are rolling on the floor laughing their asses off. This is a goddamned fucking war. It’s War.

    1. I have a WWI trench knife, one of those with the heavy hilt guard and brass knuckles on it. It is a family heirloom. My grandfather’s first cousin carried it in WWII. When the race against the russians came at the end of the war everyone was scrambling as fast as they could to take as much of germany as possible. They came upon some german soldiers and captured them. They tied them up and sat them down in a row. They asked where the armor and artillery was. One of the germans told my cousin to go fuck himself, so he took the trench knife and poked it down between the guy’s collar bone and his neck. The german fell over in a fountain of blood. Then he went to the next german, wiped the blade off on the guy’s shirt and asked again. In a chorus all of the germans told where the big guns were.

      That is war. It’s horrible and mean spirited. It is a nightmare, but that is how you win. If you don’t win then it is your children and your wives murdered. Your country that gets raped and pillaged.

      Crying over Trump being a big meanie…Jesus fucking christ. You better sack up Chuck. That goes for you too Sullum.

      1. I can assure you that Chucky Moobs is engaging in theatrics. He’s a cunt and the sky is blue.

    2. This is a goddamned fucking war. It’s War.

      Forget your meds today, boy?

    3. Seeing Chuckie schemer crying about this EO made we wonder which hack wrote the script for the movie we’re living through..

      1. Do you give Schumer and others like him Oscars for the over the top acting, or do you point out they went full retard, and you never should go full retard?

  25. I don’t think it was “casual cruelty” to include green card holders, it’s just the regular old casual ignorance. Obama had a pen and a phone, now Trump’s got the pen and the phone. Obama had to use EO’s when those nasty obstructionists in Congress refused to do their jobs and approve whatever actions he wanted, Trump’s just cutting out that unnecessary step of asking Congress “Mother, may I?” when it doesn’t matter what Congress says, he’s going to do it anyway. Trump may never consult Congress at all, he might just do nothing but issue EO’s for 4 straight years and what difference, at this point, does it make?

    1. He might, at least, you know, consult with legal experts in his own administration about what the consequences would be of particular wording or interpretations of his orders prior to signing EOs, especially EOs that immediately go into effect? Just a crazy thought!

  26. How can we have a libertarian moment with Islamic terrorist freely roaming through our borders?

    1. Without.

      1. ^ Friendly fire incident

  27. This is a goddamned fucking war. It’s War.

    1. naaah, it’s just a regular war, the fucking war will have really fun bayonets…

  28. Cam John Fucking McCain just die already.

  29. That is war. It’s horrible and mean spirited. It is a nightmare, but that is how you win. If you don’t win then it is your children and your wives murdered. Your country that gets raped and pillaged.

  30. Ima sooo skerred – who’s gonna protect me from the muzzies???

  31. So. Has anyone actually seen the full written executive order?

    I’ve only seen excerpts. The NYT, of course, highlights one section that reads as very strict. The other side points to a second paragraph with extensive descriptions of how those in transit, green card holders, etc will be provide with expedited assessment at the border to limit hardship.

    This reeks of fake news all around. I would have expected Reason to link to the EO, but the two articles I’ve read do not.

    1. So. Has anyone actually seen the full written executive order?

      If only there was a way for you to be able to find information on your own.

      1. It was a question. Have you read it? Kinda seems like most of the commenters have not.

        It was not easy to find. Kinda surprising when it has caused such an uproar. The media is pushing ‘fake news’ over this. More people should read it, I think they’ll be surprised about what it says and what it doesn’t say.

        1. I responded to your comment flippantly because I googled and found the full text of the e/o within seconds.

          What the order says and doesn’t say has no bearing on how incredibly unnecessary it was to change the law overnight via executive fiat.

          1. It doesn’t change the law. The EO changes the way the administrative branch works with the existing law.
            Did you actually read it? Because the intense uproar around this is laughably overwrought.

            1. The visa bit changed the law. That was not part of the provision in the original EO.

            2. Because the intense uproar around this is laughably overwrought

              Mostly because of the order’s confusion.

          2. When the executive fiat was to allow certain people in, rather than keeping them out, I’m sure you had the same principled stance, right?

          3. It’s like a twofer of shit governance. The policy itself is idiotic, and then the issuance of the order was retarded. It’s like you’d have to begin with the objective of fucking up royally and then proceed with great deliberation and planning to arrive at the series of choices made to get here.

    2. Section by section analysis of the order and link to the whole order at the bottom of the page here (take out the space between “executive-” and “order” to make the link work) : https://lawfareblog.com/donald-trumps-executive- order-suspending-immigrant-and-refugee-entry-us

    3. green card holders, etc will be provide with expedited assessment at the border to limit hardship.

      Should that make a green card holder feel better? Sure, you can appeal at the border for an exception to the rule, but you have no guarantee that the exception will be granted, and if that ruins your multi thousand dollar trip, or strands you in Europe away from your family, at least you can rest assured that there was an appeals process…I guess.

    4. Please stop saying “fake news”. Adopting idiotic leftist talking points is not a good strategy.

      1. Actually, adopting leftist talking points, memes and verbiage and using it against them drives them batshit crazy.

        So no.

        1. So the whole goal is to drive leftists crazy? Not sure why that is good or helpful.

          1. not supposed to be good or helpful, just loads of good old fashion fun

      2. Please tell me how to then describe what NPR tells me on the radio. Because it isn’t “factual news”.

        I think “fake news” is perfect, because “highly biased news” doesn’t quite describe why I haven’t bothered to read the NYT in ~10 years, or can stomach watching CNN while overseas.

        1. Can you cite and example of a story from NPR or other major media outlet that is simply fabricated?

          Because that’s what “fake news” means. It is a real phenomenon, distinct from the bias displayed by pretty much all mainstream news orgs.

  32. Ok, so I see which way the winds are blowing in the comment section, and that’s fine. I think we should allow refugees into the country, maybe admitting them provisionally until they’ve been adequately vetted or something along those lines, but other people don’t feel that way and that’s fine, too. But preventing people holding green cards from re-entering the country is at least criminally stupid if not pointlessly malicious. If the issue is that these people haven’t been adequately vetted, but the process can be completed within 90 days, then do it while they’re in the country. Statistically either the vetting process has been pretty damn good to date or there just haven’t been that many jihadis creeping in through the visa program, and obviously anyone holding a visa and returning to the US has experienced some degree of vetting and has had ample opportunity to do something terroristic. So other than “virtue-signalling” and being a dick, what’s the point?

    1. I don’t think it is criminally stupid, just stupid.

      A green card can be revoked at any time. That is a risk you take when you get one. In this case, they weren’t even revoked, there was simply a travel restriction that was issued too quickly for anyone to adjust.

      I get why he wanted to do it so quickly, but I think it was misguided, for sure, for the reasons you point out.

      1. As to why he wanted to do it so quickly:

        I understand that the chances are pretty small, but if he DID give a notice, and a terrorist DID come here during that grace period and made a successful terrorist attack, it would make him look far worse than this boondoggle does. Not to mention lives would have been lost.

        Again, I don’t necessarily agree with that assessment, but I do get where he and Bannon were coming from.

        1. It’s almost as though if a law should be debated and pass judicial scrutiny before it goes into effect.

          1. If only the body of government that was supposed to do this had not abdicated that role out of some political expediency…

            Term limits might fix that problem.

        2. Yeah, but the problem with the whole “strategy” is that presumes there’s been a catastrophic failure of the vetting process. It presumes that a significant number of visa holders from those countries are imminent threats. So far, that hasn’t been born out by events on the ground. If the worst case scenario is true, i.e. there are hordes of jihadis who snuck through the visa process who would be triggered by announcing a crackdown of some kind, then the sensible thing to do would be to conduct a more thorough vetting without informing the visa holders. What he did here indicates either a propensity towards profoundly terrible decisions or a strategy of sort of probing the defenses of what people find acceptable, neither of which fill me with optimism. So I see your point about the logic behind the assessment, I just think it’s terribly flawed. Trump’s logic, not yours, if I’m not being clear.

          1. No, I certainly agree from a moral standpoint.

            I’m just trying to look at it from all angles. Another thing is that if, with this reversal, an attack does occur, the blame is now put squarely on the shoulders of the Democrats and their raving, hysterical masses.

            Again, another small probability, but of which the political benefits for Trump would be astronomical. Again, I see why he did it, but we definitely agree that it was not moral. I don’t necessarily agree that it shows that he is making terrible decisions strategically.

            1. That’s an interesting take. My wife and I have a running discussion over whether Trump is a.) dumb as a bag of hammers, b.) crazy like a fox, or c.) totally unconcerned with politics. I’m beginning to think there’s a good chance that he just kind of does stuff and DGAF about the results.

              1. d.) stupid like a fox.

      2. Yeah, I say criminally in a hyperbolic sense, not in the sense that it’s actually illegal. More in the sense of wanting a good friend to shoot me in the ass with rock salt if I ever do something like this so I’ll remember not to do it again kind of stupid.

  33. I see the new restrictions failed to stop the squirrels from getting through…

    Anyway, to recap my earlier, missing comment: I think there are intelligent ways to allow refugees in the country without risking security, but the real issue here is that including visa holders in the sweep is at least stupid and at worst malicious.

    1. SQUIRRELS!!!

      /James T. Kirk

  34. Team Trump: why don’t we just take everyone with a Muslimy name and put them in camps until we win the war against terror. Isn’t that the only way to truly be safe?

    1. Sounds like FDR to me…

      1. in the version i find most adorable, fdr actually freed the japanese from the camps by single handily winning ww2 by creating the new deal.

    2. I didn’t know Team Trump were the ones equating Middle Eastern ethnicity with Muslim

      1. Someone said they were?

  35. On another note. The U.S has helped muck up the mid east the last 16 years.. And the same goes for Mexico and South America with the war on drugs Ending the WOD.S and leaving the M.E.,except for trade where possible is the only rational out. Instead.,our TOP MEN will keep digging.

  36. Thousands more were left in limbo, their plans to move, visit children or ailing parents, take a job, or attend school suddenly canceled or on hold, all based on one man’s whim.

    Which is why one man shouldn’t have the kind of power that the Progressives spent the last ~100 years accumulating to the presidency. I know, I know: crazy talk! MAGA!

    1. That’s the lesson I’d been hoping people would learn from the Trump presidency, but so far my sampling of local progressives and statists has simply been that Trump’s just using the pen wrong.

      1. Yeah, so much this.

        I used to look at the Progressives as allies during the Bush administration. What I realized is that historically they go further right than conservatives when they are in power, then move slightly to the left of them when they are out of power. This time, under Obama, they got spoiled by the power and are refusing to allow that pendulum to swing back.

        Either way, the progressives are nothing but opportunistic statists at heart, they are much more illiberal and therefore further to the right than American conservatives. I have zero respect for them any more, and will never look at them as allies again, just perhaps useful idiots once in a while.

      2. Unfortunately they have no problem with “the pen and phone,” just that the “wrong person” might wield them.

  37. Cato Institute policy analyst Alex Nowrasteh calculates that ” ‘the chance of an American being murdered in a terrorist attack caused by a refugee is 1 in 3.64 billion per year.’ ” Did anyone wonder how someone could possibly calculate the probability of being killed in a terrorist attack in the future? That’s impossible. Well, Mr. Nowrasteh knows that, so he did not provide that figure. What he provided in his quote was the probability in the past, specifically 1975 to 2015. And he made it clear by saying the probability “was.” However, apparently Mr. Sullum wanted to make a point. So he changed the word “was” to “is.”‘ I find it hard to believe that was in unforced error. It was inside a quoted passage. Mr. Sullum should be ashamed.

    1. Yeah, what kind of crazy idiot would look to the past to get some idea of what’s likely to happen in the future?

      Hell, for all I know, the sun might rise in the north tomorrow.

      1. It might, depending on where you are.

        Because circumstances change.

        Which is the point.

      2. Right, that was my point – that you can’t look to the past. It wasn’t that a writer shouldn’t purposefully misquote someone in a way that changes the meaning of the quote.

  38. Don’t say “an ill-advised campaign promise”. Nobody “advised” Trump to do this. He doesn’t have “evil advisors”. This is a decision he made himself, and for which he’s entirely responsible. The Czar doesn’t have evil advisors. The Czar is evil.

    1. take your meds

  39. The rants and protests on this are overwrought. Of all the EOs that could have been written regarding overseas immigration, this is quite mild in its scope and impact. Not to mention it builds off of guidance from the Obama administration on which specific countries have problems in vetting.

    We’re quickly reaching the point of protest overload and methinks it should be saved for the bigger shitshows. Does anyone actually think Trump gives a crap about some protests and will moderate his actions accordingly? FFS

    And protesting at airports. When tired, average apolitical people just want to get home and have to wait and maneuver around a bunch of screaming protesters…..yeh, that will help.

    As the Instapundit says. “Do you want more Trump? Because this is how you get more Trump.”

    1. I disagree wrt the impact of the EO specifically because of the visa-holders issue, but I couldn’t agree more with the rest of your comments. The first I heard of all this was from progressives who’d already gone breathless talking about how much they hated Trump saying that he’d “banned Muslims”. So I was immediately suspicious.

      I read the EO and found everything up to the visa part not especially troubling. I don’t agree with the policy necessarily, but I don’t think it’s out of the bounds of reason–again, with the exception of the restrictions on current visa-holders. At this point I’m against the EO, but I’m also starting to get tired of the usual suspects losing their minds.

      By the afternoon, I see a Facebook friend has taken a picture of her young (like elementary school age) daughters at an airport holding a sign that says, “End White Supremacy” and I come to the conclusion that a huge number of people protesting or yelling or posting on Facebook or what-have-you are glomming on to this as just an extension of the weekly Trump protests, and haven’t actually bothered to find out any details about what’s happening.

      1. And I’m slowly beginning to think that Trump is either deliberately or accidentally creating a situation where the majority of Americans are going to be so exhausted from hearing the shrill cries of SJWs and people who are so obviously partisan (or unable to judge each situation on its own merits) that by the time he gets down to doing some really terrible shit we’ll all be numb.

        1. Trump grabbed them by the short hairs and they are screaming! Enforcing the law is some really terrible shit, can’t have that!

  40. Now we don’t know if those people are innocent do we. At least now we don’t have to find out the hard way through senseless massacre and blood shed.

  41. What part of “temporary” do you not understsnd?

  42. What’s cruel is the thousands of our citizens murdered by Muslims.

    We are effectively at war with Islam. It is an evil religion of war dedicated to world conquest and the imposition of a Sharia based tyranny. The words and actions of Muhammad during his life and that of his followers for over a thousand years prove this to be true. Letting Muslims into the USA is like letting Germans in during WW2.

  43. Can someone post the U.S. immigration policy was between 1923 to 1965?

  44. 105 people slowed down is not 1000’s

    quit buying the socialist democrat media narrative..

  45. the green card holders were a bureaucratic mistake, but guess what, they all worked for King Obama, the Dumocratic Socialists refuse to let Trump get his people in office,, write about that , moron.

  46. if you want National Fratricide, keep up the good work.

  47. upto I looked at the paycheck saying $9861 , I accept that my father in law was like they say trully bringing in money in their spare time online. . there best friend haz done this less than 8 months and a short time ago repayed the dept on there appartment and bourt a great Citro?n 2CV . see at this site
    ============> http://www.moneytime10.com

  48. Glad he back peddled on the main horrible point… Not glad he didn’t have the sense to see it coming in the first place. Maybe if we’re luck he will spasm a little too far in the right direction, and then roll back to a more sensible position for everything he does… Fingers crossed…

  49. Trump’s executive order bars entry, except with special permission, of all “aliens” from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The New York Times, citing “two American officials,” reports that Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly “had suggested green card holders be exempted from the order,” but presidential advisers Stephen Bannon and Stephen Miller “overruled him.” Hence legal permanent residents, including at least a few who were on the verge of becoming American citizens, ????? ????? ???
    ????? ???? 2018 were among the travelers who were stopped from flying to the U.S. or detained after arriving. By Sunday criticism of that policy had prompted an embarrassing reversal. “The order is not affecting green card holders moving forward,” Trump’s chief of staff, Reince Priebus, announced on Meet the Press yesterday. Also on Sunday, Secretary Kelly issued this statement:

  50. my co-worker’s half-sister makes $71 /hour on the laptop . She has been laid off for ten months but last month her check was $21762 just working on the laptop for a few hours. you can find out more

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.moneytime10.com

  51. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do

    =========================== http://www.4dayjobs.com

  52. I looked at the check for $8628 , I didnt believe that…my… father in law was like actualie taking home money in there spare time on there computar. . there sisters roommate haz done this for under 17 months and just cleard the morgage on there apartment and got a gorgeous Chevrolet Corvette . go to website

    ============================== http://www.cash-review.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.