Most claims about Trump’s visa Executive Order are false or misleading

Most claims about Trump’s visa Executive Order are false or misleading

You should read the actual EO, because most of the media and leftist pundits either have not or are lying if they have.

There are some stark policy differences about immigration and refugees over which people can disagree — those were argued at length during the election season. But the hyperbole and frenzy being exhibited in the media and by leftist pundits is hyperbole at best, fakery and lying at worst.

There is a postponement of entry from 7 countries (Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen) previously identified by the Obama administration as posing extraordinary risks. That they are 7 majority Muslim countries does not mean there is a Muslim ban, as most of the countries with the largest Muslim populations are not on the list (e.g., Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey, Nigeria and more).

Thus, the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world is not affected.

Moreover, the “ban” is only for four months while procedures are reviewed, with the exception of Syria for which there is no time limit.

There is a logic to the 7 countries. Six are failed states known to have large ISIS activity, and one, Iran, is a sworn enemy of the U.S. and worldwide sponsor of terrorism.

And, the 7 countries on the list were not even so-designated by Trump. Rather, they were selected last year by the Obama administration as posing special risks for visa entry, as even CNN concedes in passing:

click link for article as well as link to the actual EO.

As has been pointed out, and ignored, is the lies the media and the left are pushing on this topic. Ignorance is a choice so here is the info to set the record straight.

The rest is up to you.

False Points corrected in the article

* - Trump Business Connections
An offshoot of the “Muslim ban” claim is the claim that Trump deliberately excluded countries in which he does business.This argument is made in order to claim Muslims are targeted even though most of the Muslim world is not affected.

* - It’s an Absolute Ban
The “ban” is not without exceptions. There are categories of visa holders who still may enter even from those 7 countries. Also, the EO allows exceptions on a case by case basis from those 7 countries.

* - This Ends Refugees Coming to the U.S.
There is a halt to refugee processing, but it is temporary, for 120 days. Moreover, for people already going through the process, this is merely a delay not an ending, because they can resume processing once the system restarts in 120 days:

* - Anti-Muslim Discrimination
There are accusations that one particular provision discriminates. It gives preference to those fleeing religious persecution in countries in which they are a religious minority. This is being referred to as a de facto discrimination against Muslims because it mostly applies to Christians.
Well, that’s because Christians are the most persecuted religion in the Middle East, by Muslims. If there were a country in which Muslims were persecuted by another majority religion, they would get preference.In fact, this religious persecution test has long been the case in refugee cases, but has been twisted to discriminate against Christians, as this September 2016 column by Eliott Abrams explained:

* - Dual Nationals
The EO does apply to dual nationals, but not in the way people imply, suggesting U.S. citizens would be barred from reentry.Dual nationals who are U.S. citizens are not affected. The EO only applies to dual nationals from the 7 countries who travel on the passport of another (non-U.S.) country. The Wall Street Journal explains:

* - Green Card Holders
There are reports that holders of Green Cards from those 7 countries may not enter the U.S. This is partially true, but it will be handled on a case-by-case basis, according to CBS News:

* - Detentions, ETC.
There are anecdotal reports of people being detained while trying to enter the U.S., or pulled off planes, or not allowed to board. It’s hard to know whether these reports — if true — are the result of policy or confusion. As with any large bureaucratic endeavor, there seems to be administrative confusion, as the NY Times reported in a story recounting some of these reports.

* - Syrian Refugees
It is true that Syrians seeking refugee status are barred entry, and that there is no current time limit on that. Rather, resumption will take place only after security assurance are in place:

* - Conclusion: Policy Differences Don’t Justify Fake News
It is possible to criticize the EO and Trump visa/refugee policy without hyperbole and fakery. That opponents feel the need to make false and misleading accusations is a signal that they fear losing the policy argument on its merits.

* - CNN - Executive order complete

a reply to: Xcathdra

Are you surprised?

Are you not ENTERTAINED!!

Not only have they lost the plot, they are making up their own ending. S&F

Its an information war. Liberal media fake news vs. the govt. The media have become the opposition party in place of the failed Democrat party.
I think many people are seeing through the propaganda these days.

I don't know what you'd honestly expect from people who have, verifiability, been lying for years and years now.

Their stance is facts should line up with the beliefs of their twisted ideology. if facts counter their political ideology (which is the case overwhelmingly), then those facts are "problematic" and should be "corrected" so that they comply with the party line.

It's very sinister. Reminds me of stuff I read about in the USSR under Stalin.

a reply to: UKTruth

Rep/Conservative media is far from having it absolutely correct as well. It's worth noting. I know when I need to dig deep for something I find just as much fear mongering et al. as I do Trump hate rhetoric. It is a growing, much more so in the past year, problem that we all need to take into consideration.

This excerpt in the OP is a great source of what good factual info looks like.

The people who are being most vocal are not checking out what the truth is about these things. They have been blinded by their hate which was pretty much created by interacting with disruptive people who want civil unrest to happen. I think there are bigger powers that are controlling this disruption, Russia could even be involved, so could a European small group that wants control of the USA's power.

Did Obama's EO include a provision that allowed Christians (undoubtedly the minority religion in these areas) safe passage as refugees from religious persecution?

originally posted by: rickymouse
The people who are being most vocal are not checking out what the truth is about these things. They have been blinded by their hate which was pretty much created by interacting with disruptive people who want civil unrest to happen. I think there are bigger powers that are controlling this disruption, Russia could even be involved, so could a European small group that wants control of the USA's power.

More stars and flags, than actual comments. Another typical right wing blog that is quoted as fact, rather than the opinion piece that it is. It really is a shame that the Trump supporters cannot see him in an honest light. I hope he succeeds, but in his first week has been a disaster for most Americans, and with this EO will have any allies questioning our support.

originally posted by: FelisOrion
Did Obama's EO include a provision that allowed Christians (undoubtedly the minority religion in these areas) safe passage?

How would you know if a Muslim was posing as a new Christian? You probably wouldn't a Terrorist would learn some of the stuff if he knew Christians could get here.

originally posted by: FelisOrion
Did Obama's EO include a provision that allowed Christians (undoubtedly the minority religion in these areas) safe passage as refugees from religious persecution?

Did you happen to find a source yet?

Are they letting them in now?

a reply to: BubbaJoe

This has little to do with Trump and more to do with the media and how they are reporting. As in little to no factual information.

a reply to: BubbaJoe

Didnt bother to read it or was there something you didnt understand in it?

It is straight forward and cites its sources.

Tell us what parts of the article are false.

Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.

(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest — including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution,

So these two sections of the EO have nothing to do with Christians being the persecuted religion, when we have heard Donald Trump time and time again talk about how 'Christians are getting their heads chopped off by ISIS'.

Are you going to sit there with a straight face and tell me this provision was not included in the EO to allow Christian refugees safe passage, and not Muslims?

This very passage proves it is a MUSLIM ban, and not a ban based on the potential threat of terrorism. So a Christian is free to travel back to the US under the claim of refugee, but the actual refugees who run the risk of being bombed can't, because they happen to be practicing muslims?

How is this in accordance with American principles?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: BubbaJoe

Didnt bother to read it or was there something you didnt understand in it?

It is straight forward and cites its sources.

Tell us what parts of the article are false.

I didn't need to, when in the first two paragraphs he used the words "leftist pundits" twice, pretty much tells me what it is. Just another right wing hit piece. As an independent you learn to recognize "dog whistles" used by both sides, it is at that point we tend to ignore the rest of the BS they are trying to explain to us. I firmly believe that the EO that Trump signed violated our Constitution. For background, I am a veteran, and did not support the Democrats this time around.

a reply to: FelisOrion

Are Muslims persecuted in Muslim dominate nations?

a reply to: BubbaJoe

When you take the time to read the material in its entirety and then offer comment I will take the time to read the remainder of your post and respond accordingly.

What parts are false and why?

a reply to: Xcathdra

The Shia tend to be, as a general rule.

a reply to: Ohanka

Then they would qualify under existing law and the EO for refugee status.

The other question is why dont they seek refuge in a Shia dominate nation?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Allowing Christians safe passage as refugees, but not Muslims, discriminatory or not? They deliberately included that in the EO to secure the passage of Christians, all while banning Muslim refugees who pose no threat to national security.

Was that provision in the Obama EO last year?

a reply to: Xcathdra
double post====----