Saturday, January 28, 2017

Trump's Refugee Ban is Actually Obama’s Refugee Ban....


Jan.27/2017: Just the facts of the matter at hand!
"How, though, did the Trump administration choose these seven Muslim-majority countries? The truth is it didn't: The countries were chosen during Barack Obama's presidency.
According to the draft copy of Trump's executive order, the countries whose citizens are barred entirely from entering the United States is based on a bill that Obama signed into law in December 2015.
Quoting from Trumps executive order
  • Ban for 30 days all “immigrant and nonimmigrant” entry of individuals from countries designated in Division O, Title II, Section 203 of the 2016 consolidated appropriations act: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. These countries were targeted last year in restrictions on dual nationals’ and recent travelers’ participation in the visa waiver program.
 These countries, the one that Trump is allegedly banning refugees from, were targeted under the Obama Administration- Signed into law December 2015.
"Thursday’s announcement is an expansion of a law passed late last year, which revoked the visa-waiver status of people who had recently traveled to Iraq, Syria, Iran or Sudan, and who hold dual citizenship with any of those four countries"
The Obama administration expanded on a previous law.. to include Iraq, Syria, Iran and Sudan. Libya, Somalia and Yemen were already included.

December 08/2015: Here's the vote!


FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 679

(Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)

      H R 158      2/3 YEA-AND-NAY      8-Dec-2015      5:18 PM
      QUESTION:  On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended
      BILL TITLE: Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015


YeasNaysPRESNV
Republican2423
Democratic165194
Independent
TOTALS407197


 Understand? The Obama administration's 2015 Waiver Program set the parameters for the Trump Bill.
Obama signed the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act as part of an omnibus spending billThe legislation restricted access to the Visa Waiver Program, which allows citizens from 38 countries who are visiting the United States for less than 90 days to enter without a visa.
Let's follow the link embedded in the above paragraph
It takes us here 

 On January 21, the U.S. State Department began implementing changes to the U.S. Visa Waiver Program. Citizens of 38 countries, including many E.U. states, do not need visas to travel to the United States. But the new measure bars citizens of those countries who are also dual nationals of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Sudan from participating in the program. Those who have travelled to those four countries since 2011 also cannot participate, according to some interpretations.
 The change was first proposed by Congress to make it more difficult for terrorists who hold E.U. or other citizenships to enter the United States. House Resolution 158 passed 407 to 19 on December 8.


 Though outside groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and NIAC Action — the sister organization of the National Iranian American Council — opposed the act, the bipartisan bill passed through Congress with little pushback.
At the initial signing of the restrictions, foreigners who would normally be deemed eligible for a visa waiver were denied if they had visited Iran, Syria, Sudan or Iraq in the past five years or held dual citizenship from one of those countries.
In February 2016, the Obama administration added Libya, Somali and Yemen to the list of countries one could not have visited — but allowed dual citizens of those countries who had not traveled there access to the Visa Waiver Program. Dual citizens of Syria, Sudan, Iraq and Iran are still ineligible, however.
So, in a nutshell, Obama restricted visa waivers for those seven Muslim-majority countries — Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen — and now, Trump is looking to bar immigration and visitors from the same list of countries.

 When this passed under Obama, it was passed quietly- However when Trump passes a bill based on the Obama administrations previous laws it's a big deal? Why? I feel this frenzy is being whipped up by the media to create division and diversion.

Division? 
Right vs Left. Women vs Men. Refugees vs Citizens. Etc., Typical identity politics garbage!

 It's the DIVERSION that worries me

 Trumps executive order also tasks the secretary of defense to draft a plan for the establishment of safe zones in Syria...
 Establish “safe zones to protect vulnerable Syrian populations.” The executive order tasks the secretary of defense with drafting a plan for safe zones in Syria within 90 days. This would be be an escalation of U.S. involvement in Syria and could be the first official indication of how Trump will approach the conflict there.
 As mentioned the other day:  Updated! Trump to Order Plan for Syria "Safe Zones": Document

Yes, this will offer us all an official indication of how the Trump government will approach the destabilization of Syria! We'll know in 90 days.

Flashback- June 17/2016: US General: We Are Ready To Create a No-Fly Zone in Syria
The U.S. Air Force is ready to create a no-fly zone in Syria, as stated by General David Goldfein, Rosbalt reported.
 Goldfein stressed that the establishment of such a zone will protect civilians from bombing.(safe zone)
Additionally the executive order does this...
Expedite the completion of a biometric entry-exit tracking system for all visitors to the U.S.
Slippery slopes...

Recent Posts You May Have Missed:

 And the post closest to my heart...

30 comments:

  1. When this passed under Obama, it was passed quietly

    That because obomber is a black demodog potus who did everything behind the curtain of lies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. of course it passed quietly under Obama- democrat and nobel peace prize winner- perception management extraordinaire!

      Mass murderer!

      Delete
  2. Excellent reporting, Penny. Thanks so much. Did not know this.

    Why hasn't the complicit media reported a shred of this information to the public?!? Yes, that was a rhetorical question . . .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent reporting?? Are you kidding? With its correlational and associative fallacies?? A visa waiver ban doesn't prevent you from coming to the US--it just means you now have to get a visa before you do.

      And the countries on the visa-waiver program are hardly the countries that Trump has banned concerning immigration. The former are European, East Asian and one South American country: https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/visit/visa-waiver-program.html

      The whole article is guilty of a guilt by association reasoning. Amazingly bad.

      Delete
    2. thanks slozo-- IMO it's just continuity of government-- the kind we've seen from Clinton to Bush- Bush to Obama and Obama to Trump

      In fact the safe zones are Obama's too!

      Delete
    3. sail2deepsea: who apparently doesn't read.

      right beside John Kerry's image.. "the new measure bars citizens of those countries who are also dual nationals of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Sudan from participating in the program. Those who have travelled to those four countries since 2011 also cannot participate, according to some interpretations"

      "The change was first proposed by Congress to make it more difficult for terrorists who hold E.U. or other citizenships to enter the United States. House Resolution 158 passed 407 to 19 on December 8"

      The vote is included in the post

      Obama administration keeping alleged terrorists out, just like Trump!

      Delete
    4. I truly believe that fighting terrorism is so important but it cannot justify being suspicious of people just because they come from a certain country or practice a certain faith. As sail2deepsea posted - requiring people who recently travel to certain countries or who have dual citizenship to obtain a visa before coming to the United States (whereby they would have to go through the already existing extensive vetting process) is completely different than BANNING people from entering the United States who are from these countries. I understand what you're saying - that Trump didn't get these countries out of no where - but the two acts are not the same. Trump's EO violates federal law and is unconstitutional The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 prohibits discrimination on the issuance of a visa based on national origin or religion. When you order that people from certain countries cannot obtain a visa or enter the country with a valid visa (or even a green card in this case) just because they are from a certain country it is discriminatory and violates the law. When you provide exceptions to this ban based on religion (Christians) it violates the law and is unconstitutional. This is not the same thing as Obama's action which effect the visa waiver regime where people can enter the US without obtaining a visa. The Act you reference adds the 7 countries to a large list of countries which were already exceptions to the visa waiver regime. Do you see the difference? Furthermore, the ban on accepting refugees violates international law. As signatories to the Geneva Convention we are obligated to take in refugees. These people are fleeing the horrors of war - most of which are women and children. Refugees go through an extensive multi year vetting process before they can come to the United States. No Syrian has ever committed an act of terror on American soil. In fact, no act of terror has been committed on American soil by any person from any of the countries listed in the ban. I think that the reason people are referring to it as a Muslim Ban is because Trump talked about banning Muslim's during the election. I understand that he has since walked back that rhetoric but the statements by Giuliani over the weekend show that his EO was an attempt to "legally" ban large groups of Muslims. And the fact that there is an exception for Christian refugees shows that religion is a factor which, again, is unconstitutional. It's wrong and dangerous to state that these people are "alleged terrorists" when they are not. We are so lucky to have never had to experience the horrors that these individuals and families have. I get that terrorism is scary, I'm currently living in France where it is much more of a problem.

      Delete
    5. hello:

      the waiver act is called in full '

      "Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015

      and from the bit above

      "the new measure bars citizens of those countries who are also dual nationals of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Sudan from participating in the program.

      bars = banned
      Trumps bills is just a continuity of the policy began under Obama....

      Delete
    6. It barred them from participating in the program - the visa waiver program - meaning they had to get a visa to come to the US like every person from every country other than the 38 on the visa waiver list. It did not ban them from coming to the US.

      Delete
    7. Trumps bill is still just a continuity of the policy began under Obama....

      And it's only for 90 days- Obama's was not limited.

      Why was the outcry for Obama's bill non existent and this one blown all out of proportion?


      Delete
    8. I'm really trying to help people see the difference here, so maybe this will help!

      Frank is a British citizen who travels to Iraq a lot or maybe he has dual citizenship with Iraq.
      Pre-2015 Obama Act - to come to the US Frank did not need a visa, because the UK is included in the visa waiver program.
      Post 2015 Obama Act - to come to the US Frank needed a visa, because he had recently traveled to Iraq. The law does not prohibit him from getting a visa. It does not discriminate against him based on his national origin.

      Now, let's say we have Sara who is an Iraqi citizen.
      Pre-2015 Obama Act: Sara needed to get a visa to come to the US because Iraq is not on the visa waiver list.
      Post-2015 Obama Act: No change - Sara still needed a visa. She wasn't barred from coming to the US - she just needed to get a visa, like always.
      Post-Trump EO: Sara is banned from the US, even if she has a visa, just because she is an Iraqi citizen. Which is illegal.

      Delete
    9. I get what your saying about nation of origin- Truly I do.

      However who named these nations?... Obama

      I get that it's a ninety day ban- but it's just that a ninety day ban- based on Obama's previous legislation. We'll have to wait ninety days to see what happens afterwards.

      thanks for clarifying by the way..

      Delete
  3. Seven countries...
    "And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

    This is also interesting.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3Soz21WEAAWpSq.jpg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Clark, David Petraeus,Stavridis continuum.

      Trump first press conference: 011117

      Delete
    2. you got it- continuing the policy- only right now their playing a game with Iran... but the knives are already out

      Delete
  4. Excellent research and good information. Thanks Miss Penny. To paraphrase, "All in all, just another brick in the wall."

    More bait and switch in American politics but this time there truly IS something different. And that something is optimism, a thing people have not felt for a long time in judaicized North America. Things are changing, all that remains to be seen is just how, where, when.

    I watched when Bush did the same thing for Obama even though the world had never even heard of the latter. He signed some outrageous Orders and never used them but Obama jumped in and just got busy. And then went mad with his penmanship. When he was not golfing he was signing Executive Orders with his (((team))) surrounding him. He signed hundreds of them compared to the wee number by previous Presidents.

    So things are definitely set up for Trump. But I am still sitting back and watching the show without offering much opinion regarding Trump because it is no more than semi-educated supposition. He is doing his job at this point and there is no way to do it without causing pain to the foci of his attentions. And just because things are signed in, they are not necessarily law. Interesting and exciting times we find ourselves in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "So things are definitely set up for Trump'

      exactly- so all this carrying on about Trump is silly without looking at what was already put in place by the Obama administration.

      I'm not sure about Trump, but, I do not like his safe zone proposition at all- Didn't like it under Obama and don't like it under Trump

      Delete
    2. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the Safe zone proposition has lost its original purpose since, Turkey made a deal with its neighbors. This safe Zone proposition was from Turkey originally if I recall correctly. At this point I see it more as something destabilizing the area.

      Delete
    3. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the Safe zone proposition has lost its original purpose since, Turkey made a deal with its neighbors. This safe Zone proposition was from Turkey originally if I recall correctly. At this point I see it more as something destabilizing the area.

      Delete
    4. Safe zones meant one thing to Turkey
      And another thing to the US-

      Which is why the US did not cooperate with Turkey on operation Euphrates shield.

      I'm looking to see what will happen in 90 days

      Delete
    5. Dempsey former JCS didnt like safe zones either. But Petraeus does.
      http://thehill.com/policy/defense/298641-petraeus-its-not-too-late-for-a-no-fly-zone-in-syria

      072213
      http://thehill.com/policy/defense/312675-gen-dempsey-syria-no-fly-zone-could-cost-1b-per-month


      Petraeus says ago meeting Israeli DefMin on expanding counter terror coalition into the western Mosul fight. Med offshore, Gaza war and Haifa pipe at stake?

      "Israeli Defense Chief Says No Chance of Reaching Bilateral Deal With Palestinians. Avigdor Lieberman tells former CIA chief Petraeus that attempts to come to an agreement have failed since the Oslo Accords and that a regional framework is required.
      http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.766638

      Delete
  5. Hi Penny, hope things are going well. I have been reading more on the Armenian Genocide debate. Very interesting. I think if the Armenian 'grnocide' is true then it isn't just Turks to blame. Anti-Turkism has been around in Europe for a long time:
    http://www.armeniangenocidedebate.com/our-armenians-turkish-armenians-turkey
    http://www.armeniangenocidedebate.com/armenian-attacks-facebook-and-turks

    http://www.armeniangenocidedebate.com/anti-turkism

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you want to know more about this perspective you can also look into Justin McCarthy (American historian), who has researched into this matter. On youtube you can find some videos where he goes in to his research. He has been labelled as pro-turkish by the other side.

      Delete
    2. I will have a look Ally thanks
      Kaz thank you
      I'm working on something that occurred here in Canada presently

      Delete
    3. Thanks for the name Kaz. There is a nice community here at Penny's blog, hope to see you comment more often. I am British but have a Turkish father so always interested in this stuff :)

      Delete
    4. I will stick around and see where things go and I think that knowings one's history and be with peace with(as in you know what good and wrong things they have done/withnessed and learn from it) helps you to find your place in the world. imo

      Delete
    5. Hi Ally and Kaz:

      Thanks Ally- Generally yes, this is a pretty good place

      I took a few minutes to look at the links- am reading the final one presently- and as much as I enjoyed the movie Lawrence of Arabia- as I learned more history I realized that Lawrence was really stirring the post against the Turks for the benefit of the Brits and BP especially (in a nutshell)

      Kaz: I will have a look at the historian you mentioned- probably tomorrow- for now- i've been following the news from home, Canada.

      Delete
  6. Moving this here from Rescue:
    in the previous safe zone post relinked above-

    RescueJanuary 29, 2017 at 4:34 PM

    A safe zone is horrible. It is worse than a no fly zone, as it includes an NFZ, but also thousands of boots on the ground, which in Syria would be an occupation.
    Incidently, they want this safe zone to be in north Syria, the area that YPG has annexed from the central state.
    Ehat the Pentagon want's is in essance a PKK safe zone on Turkeys border. This is operation provide comfort 2.0. The establishment of a Kurdish federation like the KRG.
    Thankfully, on twitter it is reported that Turkey has received the US offer with scepticism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Saudi King supports it. What does the allegedly dying Nayef think after his trip to Turkey and Erdogan meeting? Those 'forces" again as US firms tasked with assessing the Saudi reserves(Baker Hughes)into the 2030 economic turnaround which includes a national registration card like Thailand.

      http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/World/2017/Jan-30/391517-saudi-king-agrees-to-support-safe-zones-white-house.ashx

      Delete

TROLLS &SPAM WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT HESITATION
KEEP IT RELEVANT. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS