There's an amusing irony that the biggest story I heard come out of Obama's pardons was Blagojevich's daughter bitching that Ol' Rod didn't get one. Because y'know, selling a Senate seat is a crime and Obama isn't some massively corrupt Chicagoes-before-hoes caricature.
How do you pardon someone that's not convicted of anything? And I think people misunderstand what Executive Orders are. Trump is the head (executive) of every single federal agency. He can issue orders on how those agencies act based on laws that have already been passed by Congress. He cannot create brand new laws out of thin air, but the orders he issues carry the force of law. His orders are constitutional until declared otherwise by a federal judge, which is what happened when the judge ruled yesterday that he cannot ban those already in transit to the US. Obama issued similar orders in 2011 to ban visas and refugee claims of all Iraqis for 6 months. Now the reasoning behind Trump's orders is suspect and whether its heavy handed is up for debate, but legally his orders will probably stand for the full 30 days.
Bush did the same thing as he was leaving office... basically pardoned himself and his staff for any future findings of illegal acts.
This is making me a poltiical person. Not allowing someone into our country simply based on religion offends my intrinsic sense of morality and justice.
I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but why was this not met with the same response we are seeing today?
One of the more infuriating trends that has emerged recently is the trend of John McCain identifying what the right thing is, speaking out about the right thing, declaring that we will do the right thing, and then folding like a lawn chair and supporting the wrong thing.
Because that didn't result in people being stranded or detained in airports with previously obtained Visas... it was about anything new being processed or issued. And it was only Iraqis, not 7 different countries because they were Muslim (that conspicuously doesn't include Saudi Arabia).
Someone in the administration is going to take Giuliani out back eventually. He can't stop himself from gloating on TV, and every time he does he reveals some unethical and nefarious shit the administration is doing. The Trump team is trying to sell this ban as "not a Muslim ban" and Rudy goes on TV and says Trump asked him how to dress up a Muslim ban to make it legal.
Well Trump's decisions are forever tainted with his rhetoric. So no matter what he does, it's going to be seen as a marginalization of whatever group or cause is in play. Plus Obama (and Carter before him, even though he fucked it up in the end) singled out one country and articulated the necessity. Trump has a hard time explaining himself because he has probably never had to. Plus it doesn't make sense to lump in Iran. There are major diplomatic issues with Iran, just different ones. The odds of an Iranian Shia Muslim waking up tomorrow as a Sunni Jihadist are the same odds of Aetius waking up tomorrow as a Tea Party Trump Supporter. So Trump likely figured he was getting it done in one swoop, but it's poorly communicated and probably lacks an understanding of the underlying issues. Plus the execution has the optics of an orphanage fire since it was done within a day of his EOs on illegal immigration, which weren't even that unreasonable on their own. Whether or not it's racially motivated, I have no idea. It's hard to assume someone's motivations unless they tell you. But allowing Christians and not Muslims would suggest so. And in aggregate, it looks terrible.
Canadian cartoon superhero votes in American election? You could see that coming, like a Belzec bouncing on Audry's chin.
So, why exactly is this a ban on Muslims? Why is everyone so upset about this? I've read the order, I've read the reaction, this looks like fake outrage. There are more than 7 predominantly Muslim states around the world. The vast majority of Muslim immigrants in the US do not come from these countries. Regardless of religion in these 7 countries, the people aren't coming in for at least 120 days. Looking at the issues Europe is currently dealing with, is a review of our entry policy such a bad idea? I get it. There are certain people that are never going to be happy no matter what he does but some of this stuff is ridiculous. I agree, Iran should be excluded from this if we are talking terrorism alone. Overall though, I'm far more concerned with his Manning comments than I am with this temporary freeze on shotgunning refugees into our country.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/giuliani...n-he-asked-me-for-right-way-to-do-it-legally/ Basically, Giuliani went on Fox and said that Trump asked him how to ban Muslims legally.
So realistically, this is more about poor communication and execution than anything else, but layer on the fact it's Trump doing it and you get the reaction. Got it. There is a lot of attention that should be placed on our current visa/refugee program as it's basically a bureaucratic nightmare. I don't think Trump did a very good job laying out why or how he was going to change things, but it goes along with his already seen work flow of action, explanation, re-explanation, completion.
Again; what about KSA, what about Nigeria, what about Morocco, what about Egypt, what about Pakistan, what about Indonesia? It's not a ban on Muslims. Sure, Trump said a ban on Muslims but I'm pretty sure, based on the executive action taken, he is talking about a ban on radical Islamic terrorism.
Sure because thats clearly spelled out on their passports. This is the same logic as banning guns because criminals use them. The people we are worried about arent going to play by the rules...