90 day suspension of visas for certain countries

woppi · 29-01-2017 11:39am #1

The impact of the suspension put into action on Friday is wide ranging. Those who can no longer transit through the US hub airports now have to make other arrangements which can be incredibly costly. Does anyone know if citizens from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, or Yemen have prevented from boarding US bound flights in Ireland?

Gatling · 29-01-2017 11:40am

Yes from what I've heard it's already in effect at Shannon airport.

THE US EMBASSY in Dublin has confirmed that Donald Trump’s executive order of a 90-day ban on people from seven Muslim countries entering the US is in operation at Dublin and Shannon Airport.

The US President has barred all refugees from entering the country for three months — and those from war-ravaged Syria indefinitely.

Entry to the US is being denied to people from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

In a statement the Dublin Embassy confirmed, “The Executive Order suspends visa issuance and entry into the United States of nationals of countries of particular concern (Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen), including dual nationals of these countries.

Panrich · 29-01-2017 11:41am

woppi wrote: »

The impact of the suspension put into action on Friday is wide ranging. Those who can no longer transit through the US hub airports now have to make other arrangements which can be incredibly costly. Does anyone know if citizens from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, or Yemen have prevented from boarding US bound flights in Ireland?

According to the US embassy, the new rules are being enforced at Irish airports.

Kitsunegari · 29-01-2017 11:57am

It's absolutely sickening that more people are out protesting against a US VISA ban to Yemenis rather than protest when the US was bombing Yemen.

budgemook · 29-01-2017 12:03pm

Kitsunegari wrote: »

It's absolutely sickening that more people are out protesting against a US VISA ban to Yemenis rather than protest when the US was bombing Yemen.

The latter wasn't so widely reported although perhaps that is what you find sickening.

recedite · 29-01-2017 12:15pm

The ordinary people in the US and in Europe are becoming increasingly fed up with the idea that countries such as Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen can be bombed back to the stone age with our consent and with western produced weapons.
And then the solution proposed afterwards by our leaders is for the entire populations of these countries to move in with us as refugees.

Knowing that they and their descendants will feel some sort of divine right to perpetrate bombings and shootings for generations. And we are supposed to tolerate this due to some form of collective guilt?

No, its time they fcuked off and solved their own problems.

B_Wayne · 29-01-2017 12:19pm

recedite wrote: »

The ordinary people in the US and in Europe are becoming increasingly fed up with the idea that countries such as Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen can be bombed back to the stone age with our consent and with western produced weapons.
And then the solution proposed afterwards by our leaders is for the entire populations of these countries to move in with us as refugees.

Knowing that they and their descendants will feel some sort of divine right to perpetrate bombings and shootings for generations. And we are supposed to tolerate this due to some form of collective guilt?

No, its time they fcuked off and solved their own problems.

The massive protest outside of JFK airport including striking taxi drivers indicates that there's plenty of opposition to this policy. The world seems pretty horrified at the moment tbh. The pope, leaders from across the globe have objected.

PMBC · 29-01-2017 12:20pm

recedite wrote: »

The ordinary people in the US and in Europe are becoming increasingly fed up with the idea that countries such as Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen can be bombed back to the stone age with our consent and with western produced weapons.
And then the solution proposed afterwards by our leaders is for the entire populations of these countries to move in with us as refugees.

Knowing that they and their descendants will feel some sort of divine right to perpetrate bombings and shootings for generations. And we are supposed to tolerate this due to some form of collective guilt?

No, its time they fcuked off and solved their own problems.

Perhaps our governments should stop bombing them?

Fr Tod Umptious · 29-01-2017 12:29pm

B_Wayne wrote: »

The massive protest outside of JFK airport including striking taxi drivers indicates that there's plenty of opposition to this policy. The world seems pretty horrified at the moment tbh. The pope, leaders from across the globe have objected.

Trump's actions are extreme and I'd expect them to be toned down in the short to medium term, but his election in the US, Brexit in the UK and the rise of the right in Europe tells us that people are not happy with open door policies, especially when such policy has been associated with mass sexual assaults in Germany and the murder of civilians in Paris.

CMOTDibbler · 29-01-2017 12:47pm

recedite wrote: »

The ordinary people in the US and in Europe are becoming increasingly fed up with the idea that countries such as Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen can be bombed back to the stone age with our consent and with western produced weapons.
And then the solution proposed afterwards by our leaders is for the entire populations of these countries to move in with us as refugees.

Knowing that they and their descendants will feel some sort of divine right to perpetrate bombings and shootings for generations. And we are supposed to tolerate this due to some form of collective guilt?

No, its time they fcuked off and solved their own problems.

The inherent contradiction here, is inherent. :rolleyes:

Mr.Micro · 29-01-2017 12:48pm

Iraq, now that is a surprise. I thought Iraq was liberated by Bush and Blair. The current measure will be one of many. It won't be the first time the US has not thought things through.

recedite · 29-01-2017 12:54pm

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

The inherent contradiction here, is inherent. :rolleyes:

Read it again. There is no contradiction.

CMOTDibbler · 29-01-2017 12:59pm

recedite wrote: »

Read it again. There is no contradiction.

Really?

We bomb them back to the stone age for (in many cases) no good reason at all and then having created their problems, tell them to fúck off and sort them out themselves?

Yeah, not a bit contradictory. I can see that now. :rolleyes:

dissed doc · 29-01-2017 1:06pm

Kitsunegari wrote: »

It's absolutely sickening that more people are out protesting against a US VISA ban to Yemenis rather than protest when the US was bombing Yemen.

Well Obama was in charge when they were bombing Yemen, so no protest was allowed or encouraged from the Soros-sponsored NGOs that organise these things. .

Trump is simply stopping the consequences of Obama's actions: which would be, that Yemeni-Islamic terrorist risk is now much higher (much like Europe's risk is, although Merkel implemented the opposite policy: bomb the crap of stuff, and then welcome in anyone pissed off at you).

alastair · 29-01-2017 2:11pm

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Trump's actions are extreme and I'd expect them to be toned down in the short to medium term, but his election in the US, Brexit in the UK and the rise of the right in Europe tells us that people are not happy with open door policies, especially when such policy has been associated with mass sexual assaults in Germany and the murder of civilians in Paris.

The people murdered in Paris were not killed by immigrants. There is no 'open door policy' in place in the EU or the US. Freedom of movement is restricted to internal Schengen or EU states alone.

recedite · 29-01-2017 2:15pm

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

We bomb them back to the stone age for (in many cases) no good reason at all and then having created their problems, tell them to fúck off and sort them out themselves?

As I said, I'm not in favour of bombing them. And as another poster said, we should be protesting at what is happening in Yemen. The idea that Yemenis should move to the US to avoid being bombed is not a runner IMO.

And BTW the wars between sunni and shia have been going on for nearly 2000 years. If the Saudis were not using western weapons against their neighbours in Yemen, they would be using swords, daggers and homemade guns.

Afghans defeated the British army in the 19th century mainly because their homemade guns had a longer range than the standard British army issue. And fair play to them too.
Don't be under any illusions that these guys are the defenceless and hapless victims of western intervention.

Dial Hard · 29-01-2017 2:41pm

Mr.Micro wrote:

It won't be the first time the US has not thought things through.

It hasn't been thought through at all. I went to school with a girl who was born in Iran. Her cousin has been living (legally) in the US for the past 7 years. She was out of the country when the order was signed and is now stuck in Dubai having been denied boarding on her flight home and is wondering what the **** is going to happen now. To her dog. Her job. Her house. Her car that's parked at JFK airport.

This is the reality of this ludicrous order. It's affecting real people with real lives, not just the swathes of wannabe terrorists that Trump imagines are trying to gain entry to the US. He's in "reds under every bed" territory here and I for one find it terrifying.

Permabear · 29-01-2017 2:44pm

This post has been deleted.

Varik · 29-01-2017 2:54pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Doubt anything will change, only reason Obama could do anything is due to his executive powers. A removal of these powers would be in the Republicans benefit. Republicans have had a majority in congress for all but 2 terms in the last 20+ years.

Yourself isit · 29-01-2017 3:01pm

budgemook wrote: »

The latter wasn't so widely reported although perhaps that is what you find sickening.

Of course but Obama was in power. RTE and the BBC will notice Yemen bombings now.

As for trump applying this rule to green card holders and dual citizens is the height of folly. If he didn't there would have been no scenes at the airports.

Otherwise the US already had countries where you needed visas to get in, and countries where visas were denied.

Yourself isit · 29-01-2017 3:09pm

Dial Hard wrote: »

It hasn't been thought through at all. I went to school with a girl who was born in Iran. Her cousin has been living (legally) in the US for the past 7 years. She was out of the country when the order was signed and is now stuck in Dubai having been denied boarding on her flight home and is wondering what the **** is going to happen now. To her dog. Her job. Her house. Her car that's parked at JFK airport.

This is the reality of this ludicrous order. It's affecting real people with real lives, not just the swathes of wannabe terrorists that Trump imagines are trying to gain entry to the US. He's in "reds under every bed" territory here and I for one find it terrifying.

It's appalling alright. Major political blunder.

Immigration officers could always resist entry even to people who had valid visas though. It was always a worry when coming back to the US on my H1B visa. But rarely used.

recedite · 29-01-2017 3:09pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There are three separate powers in a republic; the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.
In the USA, the President is the executive, therefore his administration is "the government" ... and so he governs. That is completely legit.

The judiciary can only intervene in this "government" if an executive order breaks an existing law. If that is the case, then the executive order would have to be be retracted and modified accordingly.

recedite · 29-01-2017 3:26pm

Yourself isit wrote: »

As for trump applying this rule to green card holders and dual citizens is the height of folly. If he didn't there would have been no scenes at the airports.

Can you cite any actual instances of this? There is a lot of fake news about.
The nearest I can find with a quick google is...

Pegah Rahmani, 25, waited at Washington's Dulles airport for several hours for her grandparents, both Iranian citizens with U.S. green cards. "They weren't treating them very well," she said.
Rahmani's grandfather is 88 and legally blind. Her grandmother is 83 and recently had a stroke. They were released to loud cheers and cries.

I'd imagine this couple got through once it was established they had valid green cards.

As for dual citizens, why wouldn't they just show their "good" passport?
Some will have been caught off guard, proudly travelling on their original "listed" passport, having left their adoptive country's one behind. But that's just a teething problem.

Inquitus · 29-01-2017 3:32pm

recedite wrote: »

As for dual citizens, why wouldn't they just show their "good" passport?
Some will have been caught off guard, proudly travelling on their original "listed" passport, having left their adoptive country's one behind. But that's just a teething problem.

Simply because it doesn't work like that.

recedite · 29-01-2017 3:36pm

Inquitus wrote: »

Simply because it doesn't work like that.

Not a great standard for a post. No explanation of how it does work, or actual examples, or citations?

Inquitus · 29-01-2017 3:38pm

recedite wrote: »

Not a great standard for a post. No explanation of how it does work, or actual examples, or citations?

Your standard of posting doesn't warrant me bothering to explain this to you, go do your own research, but you will however find I am correct on this matter.

recedite · 29-01-2017 3:43pm

Perhaps you are alluding to some distinction between nationality and citizenship. But if somebody is privileged enough to be offered the citizenship of an adoptive country, they are automatically invited to adopt that new nationality. If they don't, it is their own choice not to.

dissed doc · 29-01-2017 3:44pm

Inquitus wrote: »

Simply because it doesn't work like that.

If you are a US citizen/passport holder and enter the US on another passport, it is breaking the (long existing) law. That is why they are blocking dual citizens who do not travel as US citizens despite that being a condition of the passport.
Any dual citizen who is stopped while abroad has exactly zero excuses; this is enforcing already existing laws.

Green cards: a condition of a green card while having a foreign citizenship includes even not informing the authorities of a new address within 10 days of moving while continuously residing int he US, or not being able to demonstrate your primary residence is the US. They were pretty relaxed under Obama and CLinton, but now with terrorism, using Green Cards to simply turn up once per year and go back to your home country is not an option. Again, these laws and conditions existed for years; due to abuse by nationals of countries with high rates of terrorism, they are enforcing the laws on the books.

Why Yemen now? Well Obama has been bombing the crap out of it for a while, with no protests against it because well, he was Obama and a demagogue.

This is what the Dept. Foreign Affairs and Trade says about Yemen:
"Security status
We advise Irish citizens against all travel to Yemen and urge all Irish nationals currently in Yemen to leave immediately."

"
Violent unrest
The political situation in Yemen is extremely unstable and continues to deteriorate. Violent clashes are being witnessed. If you are in Yemen, we advise you to leave immediately. Always keep yourself informed of what’s going on around you by monitoring local media and staying in contact with your hotel or tour organiser.
Terrorism
The threat from terrorism in Yemen is high, and there is an extreme risk of indiscriminate terrorist attacks.
Kidnapping
Foreign nationals are potential targets for kidnapping so you should take particular care when travelling in Yemen:
Get advice from your local contacts about staying safe
Avoid travelling at night, particularly inter-city
Avoid travelling alone
When driving, ensure all car doors are locked
Vary your routes and departure times – avoid patterns which could be tracked
Pay careful attention to local media for reports of kidnapping activities"

So yes, basically, let someone with a passport in because they had a green card that was renewed once a year?

Pull the other one! Anyone coming from a country where our own DFA has such an advisory, should also be heavily screened, every time on return, as to their activities (Garda Stamps for residency or not).

It has zero to do with being a "ban on Muslims". UK heavyu screening of Irish passport holders in the 1980s and 1970s was not a "ban on Irish". That is the straight dope.

alastair · 29-01-2017 4:42pm

Green card holders situation:

The Department of Homeland Security said that the order also barred green card holders from those countries from re-entering the United States. In a briefing for reporters, White House officials said that green card holders from the seven affected countries who are outside the United States would need a case-by-case waiver to return.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/refugees-detained-at-us-airports-prompting-legal-challenges-to-trumps-immigration-order.html

Overheal · 29-01-2017 5:13pm

Kitsunegari wrote: »

It's absolutely sickening that more people are out protesting against a US VISA ban to Yemenis rather than protest when the US was bombing Yemen.

This is a fair comment. However the narrative/mission in Yemen is counter-terrorism. Compare that to say, how people protested Vietnam, and how our forces also were conducting themselves in Vietnam, in which it was a lot of widespread violence and crime - the two are quite different.

Speaking of Yemen though, it hit everyone's radar when there was a horrific misunderstanding in military execution:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/16/world/middleeast/yemen-doctors-without-borders-hospital-bombing.html?_r=0

But even this had some 'air' of accountability, and while I guarantee you no one in brass got much more than a slap, the matter was handled seriously by the administration in so far that this was not normal, it was not condoned, and its hard to protest against that..

murphaph · 29-01-2017 5:22pm

If this was at all about counter terrorism then surely Saudi nationals would be top of the banned list seeing as they have killed far more US citizens in terrorist attacks than those of any other country, US domestic terrorism excepted.

Mr.Micro · 29-01-2017 5:26pm

murphaph wrote: »

If this was at all about counter terrorism then surely Saudi nationals would be top of the banned list seeing as they have killed far more US citizens in terrorist attacks than those of any other country, US domestic terrorism excepted.

We are all trying to apply logic to it, when in reality it's alternate logic which should be applied, as used by the Donald and his team.

fran17 · 29-01-2017 5:59pm

I think this temporary measure is both tactful and appropriate and will be proven to be correct in the long run.This 90 day window will allow for the checks and balances to be put in place which will ultimately make America safer.If a nation cannot confirm an individual is who he says he is before entering the country then that nation is in peril,just ask Germany,France ,Belgium etc.Once the Soros NGOs and CAIR cease funding and stoking the fire then even those precious darlings protesting at the airports will understand.

Inquitus · 29-01-2017 6:07pm

fran17 wrote: »

I think this temporary measure is both tactful and appropriate and will be proven to be correct in the long run.This 90 day window will allow for the checks and balances to be put in place which will ultimately make America safer.If a nation cannot confirm an individual is who he says he is before entering the country then that nation is in peril,just ask Germany,France ,Belgium etc.Once the Soros NGOs and CAIR cease funding and stoking the fire then even those precious darlings protesting at the airports will understand.

These people have already been through extreme vetting. The Iraqi Interpreter who was held up at JFK this weekend, had to demonstrate that there had been attempts on his life and his families lives in order to be considered for the program and then spent nigh on 3 years getting his papers vetted, these are not just random people turning up. This man spent 10 years working with the US Army in Iraq, furthering US ambitions and helping save US lives.

CMOTDibbler · 29-01-2017 6:08pm

fran17 wrote: »

I think this temporary measure is both tactful and appropriate and will be proven to be correct in the long run.This 90 day window will allow for the checks and balances to be put in place which will ultimately make America safer.If a nation cannot confirm an individual is who he says he is before entering the country then that nation is in peril,just ask Germany,France ,Belgium etc.Once the Soros NGOs and CAIR cease funding and stoking the fire then even those precious darlings protesting at the airports will understand.

Do you really think this measure would prevent terrorists from entering the US? All it does is tell them which passport to have when entering via an airport or other transit point.

ED E · 29-01-2017 6:09pm

fran17 wrote: »

I think this temporary measure is both tactful and appropriate and will be proven to be correct in the long run.This 90 day window will allow for the checks and balances to be put in place which will ultimately make America safer.If a nation cannot confirm an individual is who he says he is before entering the country then that nation is in peril,just ask Germany,France ,Belgium etc.Once the Soros NGOs and CAIR cease funding and stoking the fire then even those precious darlings protesting at the airports will understand.

It takes 28-32 months to get approval which involves 5-6 interviews spaced out by months. What more vetting do you suggest?

Steve012 · 29-01-2017 6:11pm

murphaph wrote: »

If this was at all about counter terrorism then surely Saudi nationals would be top of the banned list seeing as they have killed far more US citizens in terrorist attacks than those of any other country, US domestic terrorism excepted.

Indeed, its quite a f**king joke tbh, They bomb, Iraq, Lybia and Syria, don't let anymore of those folks into the country. The Saudi's apparently had a hand in 9/11 and they're free to travel as normal... Such obvious bullsh*ite :rolleyes:

Inquitus · 29-01-2017 6:11pm

White House seems to be backing the truck up a bit:

Trump’s chief of staff, Reince Priebus, however, appeared to concede ground when he said the ban would no longer apply to green-card holders.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/29/trump-muslim-country-travel-ban-john-mccain

fran17 · 29-01-2017 6:21pm

Inquitus wrote: »

These people have already been through extreme vetting. The Iraqi Interpreter who was held up at JFK this weekend, had to demonstrate that there had been attempts on his life and his families lives in order to be considered for the program and then spent nigh on 3 years getting his papers vetted, these are not just random people turning up. This man spent 10 years working with the US Army in Iraq, furthering US ambitions and helping save US lives.

I don't feel we can look at this from an individuals perspective but rather as a whole.I'd imagine there was attempts on this mans life,anybody proved to be colluding with the enemy in war usually finds themselves in harms way.President Trump called for a much stronger measure during the campaign regarding this issue and now he is holding true to that promise.Is it not refreshing that we have somebody who actually does what he campaigns on?

fran17 · 29-01-2017 6:25pm

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Do you really think this measure would prevent terrorists from entering the US? All it does is tell them which passport to have when entering via an airport or other transit point.

Well yes,yes I do think it will prevent terrorists entering the US.I think it would be impossible to evaluate just how many but it will reduce the risk.

Stheno · 29-01-2017 6:27pm

fran17 wrote: »

Well yes,yes I do think it will prevent terrorists entering the US.I think it would be impossible to evaluate just how many but it will reduce the risk.

How? They now know to get e.g a Saudi passport and they are fine to get in.

fran17 · 29-01-2017 6:37pm

Stheno wrote: »

How? They now know to get e.g a Saudi passport and they are fine to get in.

Or they could simply wait for this temporary restriction to expire and if they meet the criteria then they may enter.I don't know the ins and outs of Saudi nationality law but I'd imagine getting a Saudi Arabian passport would be quite difficult to say the least.

CMOTDibbler · 29-01-2017 6:41pm

fran17 wrote: »

Or they could simply wait for this temporary restriction to expire and if they meet the criteria then they may enter.I don't know the ins and outs of Saudi nationality law but I'd imagine getting a Saudi Arabian passport would be quite difficult to say the least.

Being born there for the win.

Or naturalised. Or forged or stolen. So many ways. And there's history of Saudi nationals carrying out attacks on US soil. Any such attack would require careful planning, would be required to be 'spectacular' and would require massive funding.

A passport from the right country would be the least of those problems.

Overheal · 29-01-2017 7:06pm

fran17 wrote: »

Well yes,yes I do think it will prevent terrorists entering the US.I think it would be impossible to evaluate just how many but it will reduce the risk.

But when 97% of climate scientists agree on something, that's not enough convincing to take action...

alastair · 29-01-2017 7:07pm

fran17 wrote: »

I don't feel we can look at this from an individuals perspective but rather as a whole.I'd imagine there was attempts on this mans life,anybody proved to be colluding with the enemy in war usually finds themselves in harms way.President Trump called for a much stronger measure during the campaign regarding this issue and now he is holding true to that promise.Is it not refreshing that we have somebody who actually does what he campaigns on?

Whether you take an individual's perspective, or an overview, the policy makes no sense whatsoever. All the approved refugees and green card holders have already been comprehensively investigated and documented before they get to set foot in the US. There's nobody pretending that any new 'extreme vetting' is going to improve on the current review processes. Nothing is going to change in the next 90 days in that regard. The process takes literally years already. Trump has merely managed to needlessly antagonise greater numbers for precisely zero benefit.

murphaph · 29-01-2017 7:23pm

fran17 wrote: »

Well yes,yes I do think it will prevent terrorists entering the US.I think it would be impossible to evaluate just how many but it will reduce the risk.

And how many Muslims already legally in the US will now be radicalised because of it?

dissed doc · 29-01-2017 7:34pm

murphaph wrote: »

And how many Muslims already legally in the US will now be radicalised because of it?

Fear of upsetting people cannot be a reason to not implement the law.

Fear is what drives this; the fear is based on the pretty high number of Islam-driven terrorist attacks in the US by people already there.

Does the Gardaí cracking down on crime in Ireland radicalise Irish criminals into committing more crime? I don't think so. The opposite is true. The opposite was true in NYC when they cracked down on crime there. The same in German when they crack down on far-right groups.

Please back up your assertion! You are making it about religion in the framework of what you think religion is, when in fact it is about an agile terrorism based on Islam as a background; Islam the way of life. To suggest that using police and force to stop crime, would mean we should also reduce Gardaí action on drug crime because if we attack drug criminals, they might commit more offences!

What an insane type of double-think!

I see your location is Germany.

Germany sees extremist far-right White Nationalist groups spreading, causing violence, etc., : to stop it expanding, they crack down on it heavily.

Germany see extremist Islamic groups spreading, causing violence, etc., : to stop it expanding....they ignore it.

Trump is not ignoring it in the US. Hungary is not ignoring it. Le Pen is not ignoring it. Wilders is not ignoring it. Germany is ignoring a problem for a reason so far unknown to the public; OCcams Razor thinking would suggest to me it is because someone is wilfully and actively choosing to have it ignored.

What are the benefits of cracking down on nationalist groups, and ignoring crime from non-nationalist groups? Germany has a policy of "denationalisation" ingrained in the school system. They are actually either actively or passively simply incapable to stopping their issues because only "nationalism" (failed miserable German-type nationalism) is a problem.

The Germans sucked at nationalism. It caused massive death, endless misery; the German type of nationalism killed millions and scapegoated minorities for any economic or political failure. Swiss nationalism is quite pleasant (cuckoo clocks, snow, cheese, flags everywhere - swiss nationalism is on every street there). American nationalism is also something many wrap themselves in - Democrat and Republican together. UK nationalism is everywhere when you step foot in the place. German nationalism? All they have the miserable bad collective memory of being failures at what so many other societies get right, peacefully and successfully, for the good of all citizens, to overcome differences in religion, gender, etc., ..

martingriff · 29-01-2017 7:44pm

I think this will become cluster f*&k especially if the courts come out in relation to. Trump just went right on without ant thought or talking with anyone. (Which is something both sides do like Obama with the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). He will have to find a way to tone it down yet see it as a win. When I heard he was signing this in my first thought was so what will happen with those that have green cards visa etc that just happened to be out of the country. Looked like whoever framed this for him to sign did not think. Plus given he was doing this for largely Muslim countries where is the ban on Saudi Arabia. When I heard Irag was one I laughed.

Now I have NO problem with imposing strict rules and vetting which the EU should have been doing a long time ago and maybe coming in but some thought and complete bans on 1 place and not another when the both fit the criteria is bonkers. Some one from thr Republican party or the legal from the Supreme Court need to give him a good talk

Rightwing · 29-01-2017 7:55pm

Trump certainly appears to be a man of action. Getting things done quickly. Whilst I sort of agree with these bans, because Trump is right, no one knows anything about these loose cannons from places like Yemen, America does have a moral obligation after creating the mess in the first instance.

fran17 · 29-01-2017 8:54pm

alastair wrote: »

Whether you take an individual's perspective, or an overview, the policy makes no sense whatsoever. All the approved refugees and green card holders have already been comprehensively investigated and documented before they get to set foot in the US. There's nobody pretending that any new 'extreme vetting' is going to improve on the current review processes. Nothing is going to change in the next 90 days in that regard. The process takes literally years already. Trump has merely managed to needlessly antagonise greater numbers for precisely zero benefit.

My understanding is that all green card holders are immune from this order and that there is a certain level of discretion granted to border agents and authorities.Sure President Trump may have antagonised some but I see it as President Trump holding true to his campaign promise to the American people as a whole.He campaigned strongly,and was elected,on the promise of restricting immigration and has now acted accordingly.

martingriff · 29-01-2017 9:11pm

fran17 wrote: »

My understanding is that all green card holders are immune from this order and that there is a certain level of discretion granted to border agents and authorities.Sure President Trump may have antagonised some but I see it as President Trump holding true to his campaign promise to the American people as a whole.He campaigned strongly,and was elected,on the promise of restricting immigration and has now acted accordingly.

I have seen on BBC of people turned away even been put back on flight as they are not allowed in. So it looks like a lot of people do not know he ins or out. Also if this review of 90 days turns out the vetting is secure how will he turn that to his favour. I have nothing against if the America want to tighten ecurity but a quick law passed with no debate or scrutiny can male things worse then better. We have found that out her in our country with some of our laws

90 day suspension of visas for certain countries

Comments