Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So you are really trying to say that because the EO was blocked by the courts, the State Department, DNI, and DHS are not allowed to do an analysis on our current vetting process and propose improvements? You really believe that?I hope they are improving the vetting... I'd like to know what they've come up with and why they persist on a 90 day travel delay 130+ days after they first called for the pause.I did read it. Section 2 covers the vetting measures but basically just says that DNI, SHS and the SOS shall evaluate the vetting in those 7 countries and submit a report. There are no specifics about improving any vetting measures. I see no reason why they can't be evaluating the situation right now if they don't already have action items to take.... that's exactly what they should be doing now, they don't need an executive order to evaluate vetting processes and make them better... that's their jobRead the EO.What is your source for this information about the heightened vetting program? I'd like to see it in more detail.
How do you know they are not? Was there a requirement in the executive orders that your e-mail be copied on all of the results?
Think I explained that to you. When you enjoin and stop the EO -- you are prohibited from ANY action towards implementation of that order. It's some of phony lefty talking point that you're hung up on here. That "the clock" was still running when the EO died in court.
Would be more productive if YOU had a plan..
So you are really trying to say that because the EO was blocked by the courts, the State Department, DNI, and DHS are not allowed to do an analysis on our current vetting process and propose improvements? You really believe that?I hope they are improving the vetting... I'd like to know what they've come up with and why they persist on a 90 day travel delay 130+ days after they first called for the pause.I did read it. Section 2 covers the vetting measures but basically just says that DNI, SHS and the SOS shall evaluate the vetting in those 7 countries and submit a report. There are no specifics about improving any vetting measures. I see no reason why they can't be evaluating the situation right now if they don't already have action items to take.... that's exactly what they should be doing now, they don't need an executive order to evaluate vetting processes and make them better... that's their jobRead the EO.
How do you know they are not? Was there a requirement in the executive orders that your e-mail be copied on all of the results?
Think I explained that to you. When you enjoin and stop the EO -- you are prohibited from ANY action towards implementation of that order. It's some of phony lefty talking point that you're hung up on here. That "the clock" was still running when the EO died in court.
Would be more productive if YOU had a plan..
Who cares? Clearly they should all be banned.From which of the seven Muslim countries in the ban did the London attackers come?Hes trying to prevent the muslim problem in Europe, from happening in the US.Trumps Travel ban has been explained as a 90 day moratorium on travel from a handful of countries so that extreme vetting measures can be established.
Although the travel restrictions have been blocked by the courts there have been no restrictions to prevent him from improving our vetting measures. Had the ban not been blocked, the 90 day period would have long expired. So what does he have to show for it from a vetting standpoint?
Is he really trying to improve vetting or is he just trying to block people from traveling here and gain a political victory to a hateful base?
Please help me understand Trumps goals in relation to the 90 day timeframe and extreme vetting initiatives.
So you are really trying to say that because the EO was blocked by the courts, the State Department, DNI, and DHS are not allowed to do an analysis on our current vetting process and propose improvements? You really believe that?I hope they are improving the vetting... I'd like to know what they've come up with and why they persist on a 90 day travel delay 130+ days after they first called for the pause.I did read it. Section 2 covers the vetting measures but basically just says that DNI, SHS and the SOS shall evaluate the vetting in those 7 countries and submit a report. There are no specifics about improving any vetting measures. I see no reason why they can't be evaluating the situation right now if they don't already have action items to take.... that's exactly what they should be doing now, they don't need an executive order to evaluate vetting processes and make them better... that's their jobRead the EO.
How do you know they are not? Was there a requirement in the executive orders that your e-mail be copied on all of the results?
Think I explained that to you. When you enjoin and stop the EO -- you are prohibited from ANY action towards implementation of that order. It's some of phony lefty talking point that you're hung up on here. That "the clock" was still running when the EO died in court.
Would be more productive if YOU had a plan..
Read the thread Rock. Post stands. No one should dispute a potus may unilaterally stop immigration for any country at least for a limited time to review procedure. However, Trump's first ban was unquestionably unconst because it prevented people who had been here, and had a legal right to return. For that any ban had to be based on individual showing of them posing some danger. Trump's DOJ didn't review the first one. So the pulled it back and tidied it up. Now Trump tweets they should have stuck with the original, and the next one will be stronger.If Trump's admin hasn't put his improved vetting in place already, they should be fired for incompetence. They've the time.I hope they are improving the vetting... I'd like to know what they've come up with and why they persist on a 90 day travel delay 130+ days after they first called for the pause.I did read it. Section 2 covers the vetting measures but basically just says that DNI, SHS and the SOS shall evaluate the vetting in those 7 countries and submit a report. There are no specifics about improving any vetting measures. I see no reason why they can't be evaluating the situation right now if they don't already have action items to take.... that's exactly what they should be doing now, they don't need an executive order to evaluate vetting processes and make them better... that's their job
How do you know they are not? Was there a requirement in the executive orders that your e-mail be copied on all of the results?
That has been explained to you about 5 times. You are not in the loop. Why would we be stupid enough to tell everyone what we are looking for, so they can fix the problem before they try to sneak in?
You would have volunteered to be on the camera crews standing on the beaches of Normandy to welcome our troops after telling the Germans why you were there!
You obviously just jumped into the thread. Try reading first before going off half-cocked!
Not quite dude, nice try though. We aren't talking about tactical military missions we are talking about a vetting process. If strides have been made then they should be announced and discussed. And to be fair there have been a few strides taken. My point goes back to the need for the 90 day pause after 130 days has gone byI hope they are improving the vetting... I'd like to know what they've come up with and why they persist on a 90 day travel delay 130+ days after they first called for the pause.I did read it. Section 2 covers the vetting measures but basically just says that DNI, SHS and the SOS shall evaluate the vetting in those 7 countries and submit a report. There are no specifics about improving any vetting measures. I see no reason why they can't be evaluating the situation right now if they don't already have action items to take.... that's exactly what they should be doing now, they don't need an executive order to evaluate vetting processes and make them better... that's their jobRead the EO.What is your source for this information about the heightened vetting program? I'd like to see it in more detail.
How do you know they are not? Was there a requirement in the executive orders that your e-mail be copied on all of the results?
That has been explained to you about 5 times. You are not in the loop. Why would we be stupid enough to tell everyone what we are looking for, so they can fix the problem before they try to sneak in?
You would have volunteered to be on the camera crews standing on the beaches of Normandy to welcome our troops after telling the Germans why you were there!
The order doesn't direct any efforts to be made to improve intel from those areas. It only give a broad directive to make a report with recommendations. There is no way the blocking of the EO would restrict SOS, DNI and DHS from doing an analysis on high threat areas to improve vetting... NO WAYSo you are really trying to say that because the EO was blocked by the courts, the State Department, DNI, and DHS are not allowed to do an analysis on our current vetting process and propose improvements? You really believe that?I hope they are improving the vetting... I'd like to know what they've come up with and why they persist on a 90 day travel delay 130+ days after they first called for the pause.I did read it. Section 2 covers the vetting measures but basically just says that DNI, SHS and the SOS shall evaluate the vetting in those 7 countries and submit a report. There are no specifics about improving any vetting measures. I see no reason why they can't be evaluating the situation right now if they don't already have action items to take.... that's exactly what they should be doing now, they don't need an executive order to evaluate vetting processes and make them better... that's their job
How do you know they are not? Was there a requirement in the executive orders that your e-mail be copied on all of the results?
Think I explained that to you. When you enjoin and stop the EO -- you are prohibited from ANY action towards implementation of that order. It's some of phony lefty talking point that you're hung up on here. That "the clock" was still running when the EO died in court.
Would be more productive if YOU had a plan..
Yup. Ask legal counsel. If it concerns the SPECIFIC difficulties of getting information from those listed states -- it cannot be done without violating the order. And THAT's where the work has to focus. On the fact that there ARE NO records available from those places. And most of any "documentation" is unreliable or counterfeit.
The order doesn't direct any efforts to be made to improve intel from those areas. It only give a broad directive to make a report with recommendations. There is no way the blocking of the EO would restrict SOS, DNI and DHS from doing an analysis on high threat areas to improve vetting... NO WAYSo you are really trying to say that because the EO was blocked by the courts, the State Department, DNI, and DHS are not allowed to do an analysis on our current vetting process and propose improvements? You really believe that?I hope they are improving the vetting... I'd like to know what they've come up with and why they persist on a 90 day travel delay 130+ days after they first called for the pause.How do you know they are not? Was there a requirement in the executive orders that your e-mail be copied on all of the results?
Think I explained that to you. When you enjoin and stop the EO -- you are prohibited from ANY action towards implementation of that order. It's some of phony lefty talking point that you're hung up on here. That "the clock" was still running when the EO died in court.
Would be more productive if YOU had a plan..
Yup. Ask legal counsel. If it concerns the SPECIFIC difficulties of getting information from those listed states -- it cannot be done without violating the order. And THAT's where the work has to focus. On the fact that there ARE NO records available from those places. And most of any "documentation" is unreliable or counterfeit.
Thank you for the information, I have done research on the issue but have not come across that statement by ASG Wall. It blows my mind that the administration is unable to conduct a review of vetting procedures that may effect our national security. I'll have to dig deeper because that really makes no sense on me. I understand the travel restriction elements, but don't see why a review would be prohibited. I'd think that element could be easily appealed, I wonder if there has been any attempt for that.It's YOUR thread -- you should be figuring this out. I just warned you that was the legal interpretation I've heard recited. HOWEVER -- apparently the Trump Admin did BEAT the latest rulings and issued modifications BEFORE the Courts laid down the gavel. You really should be doing the work here..
Trump admin gives embassies broad discretion to limit travelers - CNNPolitics.com
Washington (CNN)The Trump administration has approved intensified screening measures for visa applicants trying to reach the US, even as multiple federal courts have blocked its travel ban against six Muslim-majority countries.
The State Department released new guidance to embassies worldwide on Thursday -- the same day a federal appeals court upheld an indefinite freeze on President Donald Trump's travel ban, which sought to temporarily block people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering the US.
The new measures, approved by the White House Office of Management and Budget May 23, give consular officers broad discretion to apply stricter criteria to certain applicants, demanding more background material than required of typical applicants about their families, where they've lived and worked, and their social media use, among other things.
Administration lawyers told a federal court earlier this month that the White House has complied with a Hawaii-based judge's ruling that means it can't treat nationals from the selected countries differently. But the newly approved measures show the Trump administration has continued to seek ways to apply more rigorous screening to individuals who want to travel to the US.
Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall, arguing on behalf of the Trump administration, maintained it has complied with the order from the federal judge in Hawaii blocking the travel ban. That ruling also forbid the administration from conducting "a review of the vetting procedures" with respect to the six countries the ban covered.
"We've complied with that injunction, we've put our pens down, we haven't done any work on it, so the 90-day period in our view hasn't been able to run at all," Wall added
Thank you for the information, I have done research on the issue but have not come across that statement by ASG Wall. It blows my mind that the administration is unable to conduct a review of vetting procedures that may effect our national security. I'll have to dig deeper because that really makes no sense on me. I understand the travel restriction elements, but don't see why a review would be prohibited. I'd think that element could be easily appealed, I wonder if there has been any attempt for that.It's YOUR thread -- you should be figuring this out. I just warned you that was the legal interpretation I've heard recited. HOWEVER -- apparently the Trump Admin did BEAT the latest rulings and issued modifications BEFORE the Courts laid down the gavel. You really should be doing the work here..
Trump admin gives embassies broad discretion to limit travelers - CNNPolitics.com
Washington (CNN)The Trump administration has approved intensified screening measures for visa applicants trying to reach the US, even as multiple federal courts have blocked its travel ban against six Muslim-majority countries.
The State Department released new guidance to embassies worldwide on Thursday -- the same day a federal appeals court upheld an indefinite freeze on President Donald Trump's travel ban, which sought to temporarily block people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering the US.
The new measures, approved by the White House Office of Management and Budget May 23, give consular officers broad discretion to apply stricter criteria to certain applicants, demanding more background material than required of typical applicants about their families, where they've lived and worked, and their social media use, among other things.
Administration lawyers told a federal court earlier this month that the White House has complied with a Hawaii-based judge's ruling that means it can't treat nationals from the selected countries differently. But the newly approved measures show the Trump administration has continued to seek ways to apply more rigorous screening to individuals who want to travel to the US.
Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall, arguing on behalf of the Trump administration, maintained it has complied with the order from the federal judge in Hawaii blocking the travel ban. That ruling also forbid the administration from conducting "a review of the vetting procedures" with respect to the six countries the ban covered.
"We've complied with that injunction, we've put our pens down, we haven't done any work on it, so the 90-day period in our view hasn't been able to run at all," Wall added
I completely agree with you there. Gets frustrating with we can't get straight forward answers or honest discussion about logical questionsThank you for the information, I have done research on the issue but have not come across that statement by ASG Wall. It blows my mind that the administration is unable to conduct a review of vetting procedures that may effect our national security. I'll have to dig deeper because that really makes no sense on me. I understand the travel restriction elements, but don't see why a review would be prohibited. I'd think that element could be easily appealed, I wonder if there has been any attempt for that.It's YOUR thread -- you should be figuring this out. I just warned you that was the legal interpretation I've heard recited. HOWEVER -- apparently the Trump Admin did BEAT the latest rulings and issued modifications BEFORE the Courts laid down the gavel. You really should be doing the work here..
Trump admin gives embassies broad discretion to limit travelers - CNNPolitics.com
Washington (CNN)The Trump administration has approved intensified screening measures for visa applicants trying to reach the US, even as multiple federal courts have blocked its travel ban against six Muslim-majority countries.
The State Department released new guidance to embassies worldwide on Thursday -- the same day a federal appeals court upheld an indefinite freeze on President Donald Trump's travel ban, which sought to temporarily block people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering the US.
The new measures, approved by the White House Office of Management and Budget May 23, give consular officers broad discretion to apply stricter criteria to certain applicants, demanding more background material than required of typical applicants about their families, where they've lived and worked, and their social media use, among other things.
Administration lawyers told a federal court earlier this month that the White House has complied with a Hawaii-based judge's ruling that means it can't treat nationals from the selected countries differently. But the newly approved measures show the Trump administration has continued to seek ways to apply more rigorous screening to individuals who want to travel to the US.
Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall, arguing on behalf of the Trump administration, maintained it has complied with the order from the federal judge in Hawaii blocking the travel ban. That ruling also forbid the administration from conducting "a review of the vetting procedures" with respect to the six countries the ban covered.
"We've complied with that injunction, we've put our pens down, we haven't done any work on it, so the 90-day period in our view hasn't been able to run at all," Wall added
They COULD ask that injunction be limited to implementation and not planning or research. But it DID get appealed and that would be the time to bring up that request. To my knowledge -- it wasn't.
The PROBLEM IS -- that we don't get actual news anymore. No straight "who, why, when where" reporting. If it's not part of the narrative or interpreted for us in partisan ways -- "They" deem it beyond our concerns as readers. It's becoming all highly filtered and unreliable. From ALL directions.
We NEED actual journalism to be committed in times like this.
Should we ask for "passports"?From which of the seven Muslim countries in the ban did the London attackers come?Hes trying to prevent the muslim problem in Europe, from happening in the US.Trumps Travel ban has been explained as a 90 day moratorium on travel from a handful of countries so that extreme vetting measures can be established.
Although the travel restrictions have been blocked by the courts there have been no restrictions to prevent him from improving our vetting measures. Had the ban not been blocked, the 90 day period would have long expired. So what does he have to show for it from a vetting standpoint?
Is he really trying to improve vetting or is he just trying to block people from traveling here and gain a political victory to a hateful base?
Please help me understand Trumps goals in relation to the 90 day timeframe and extreme vetting initiatives.
How will that affect tourism? It is the first, second, and third largest employment sector in twenty-nine States.Care to stop bullshitting? Terrorist can't be vetted. Block them all.
Care to stop hitting the bong?
Courts are VERY clear on this - Muslim ban is blatantly unconstitutional. You lose, time to get with reality.
It is not a Muslim ban. Why can't you get that through your thick skull?
If you are a Christian, Jew, agnostic, Muslim, atheist, Pastafarian or anything else , the ban says you can't come in!
No citizens from predominantly Muslim countries, are being banned?He's trying to keep muslim butchers out of the country. Why do you want them here?Trumps Travel ban has been explained as a 90 day moratorium on travel from a handful of countries so that extreme vetting measures can be established.
Although the travel restrictions have been blocked by the courts there have been no restrictions to prevent him from improving our vetting measures. Had the ban not been blocked, the 90 day period would have long expired. So what does he have to show for it from a vetting standpoint?
Is he really trying to improve vetting or is he just trying to block people from traveling here and gain a political victory to a hateful base?
Please help me understand Trumps goals in relation to the 90 day timeframe and extreme vetting initiatives.
If he's really trying to fix the alleged Muslim problem, then why did he just go to Saudi Arabia and silk the biggest sponsors of Terroism billions of dollars worth of weapons to them?
Trump is hardly concerned about fighting Terroism. The man is just preaching to his base.
This travel/Muslim ban is throwing a bone his Kool-Aid drinkers.
There is no Muslim ban. Why are you lying?
want to give the right wing, "the memo"? nothing but repeal or legal, "incompetence" is not any more productive.I hope they are improving the vetting... I'd like to know what they've come up with and why they persist on a 90 day travel delay 130+ days after they first called for the pause.I did read it. Section 2 covers the vetting measures but basically just says that DNI, SHS and the SOS shall evaluate the vetting in those 7 countries and submit a report. There are no specifics about improving any vetting measures. I see no reason why they can't be evaluating the situation right now if they don't already have action items to take.... that's exactly what they should be doing now, they don't need an executive order to evaluate vetting processes and make them better... that's their jobRead the EO.What is your source for this information about the heightened vetting program? I'd like to see it in more detail.
How do you know they are not? Was there a requirement in the executive orders that your e-mail be copied on all of the results?
Think I explained that to you. When you enjoin and stop the EO -- you are prohibited from ANY action towards implementation of that order. It's some of phony lefty talking point that you're hung up on here. That "the clock" was still running when the EO died in court.
Would be more productive if YOU had a plan..
Yes; we should look at All Muslim countries, especially the ones where the most "war profiteering" is being made.Since he tweeted he wants a more Big League travel ban I think we know what he, and the Trumpbots, have in mind. Hopefully Roberts and Kennedy will honestly address that.Trumps Travel ban has been explained as a 90 day moratorium on travel from a handful of countries so that extreme vetting measures can be established.
Although the travel restrictions have been blocked by the courts there have been no restrictions to prevent him from improving our vetting measures. Had the ban not been blocked, the 90 day period would have long expired. So what does he have to show for it from a vetting standpoint?
Is he really trying to improve vetting or is he just trying to block people from traveling here and gain a political victory to a hateful base?
Please help me understand Trumps goals in relation to the 90 day timeframe and extreme vetting initiatives.
