Supreme Court Reinstates Trump Travel Ban

[ShivaFan]

Breaking: The Supreme Court of the United States reinstates the Trump administration 90-day ban on travelers from six countries with known extensive Islamic terrorist training camps identified by US intelligence where the governments of such countries allow such terrorist training camps to operate without government intervention and which recruit foreigners from countries outside the six to come and train in terrorism. The Supreme Court agrees the ban is not a "Muslim ban" but a legal security measure, overturning lower court orders that blocked it.

Developing.

 

[Revoltingest]

In the news....
Associated Press

 

[tytlyf]

How many days have elapsed already of the 90? What happens after 90 days since the perceived threat won't be diminished at that time?

 

[Underhill]

So the ban, which Trump talked about non stop for 9 months, that isn't a ban, but that Trump insist is a ban in his tweets, isn't a ban and thus the courts are reinstating it?

Makes sense to me.

 

[Quetzal]

For those, like me, who forgot which countries are affected, I believe this is a correct listing: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen

 

[Underhill]

How many days have elapsed already of the 90? What happens after 90 days since the perceived threat won't be diminished at that time?

Valid point. Since this was a "temporary ban" while they figured out what to do, (which is what they originally claimed) by now they should have figured it out since the 90 days is almost up. Obviously Trump and his team of crack guys have been busy night and day coming up with a long term solution.

 

[Revoltingest]

Valid point. Since this was a "temporary ban" while they figured out what to do, (which is what they originally claimed) by now they should have figured it out since the 90 days is almost up. Obviously Trump and his team of crack guys have been busy night and day coming up with a long term solution.

I expected the original temporay ban didn't impose a schedule for figuring out what to do,
but would rather be a temporary policy which would be renewed until no longer needed.

Note:
The above shouldn't be interpreted to mean approval of his ban.
I don't know enuf to either approve or disapprove.

 

[ShivaFan]

The six countries in the ban with extensive terrorist training camps identified by US and UK intelligence are:

Somalia

Iran

Sudan

Syria

Libya

Yemen

The Supreme Court this Monday monrning allows the Trump administration to impose travel restrictions to entry from these six countries to go into effect, while setting a hearing on the entire use of security based executive orders for October.

The travel ban will go into effect within the next 72 hours.

 

[DavidFirth]

This Court never ceases to baffle me...

 

[DavidFirth]

Valid point. Since this was a "temporary ban" while they figured out what to do, (which is what they originally claimed) by now they should have figured it out since the 90 days is almost up. Obviously Trump and his team of crack guys have been busy night and day coming up with a long term solution.

The lower federal courts blocked the EO. So Trump and his people had no reason to do anything after that. Now they do.

 

[tytlyf]

The ban would make sense if people weren't already vetted. And it doesn't help that the attacks we've had weren't from those countries.

 

[Quetzal]

I expected the original temporay ban didn't impose a schedule for figuring out what to do,
but would rather be a temporary policy which would be renewed until no longer needed.

Note:
The above shouldn't be interpreted to mean approval of his ban.
I don't know enuf to either approve or disapprove.

My question is effectiveness, which is tough to gauge anyway. Also, does the data support the accusations? I am not convinced yet, but we will see.

 

[Underhill]

The lower federal courts blocked the EO. So Trump and his people had no reason to do anything after that. Now they do.

So if I understand you correctly, you are claiming that because the ban was blocked, they did nothing about the immigration problem.

That is brilliant. I mean really. By that logic I would have to just park my car the next time I run into a closed road due to construction. No worries though, when and if they open the road again I might actually get there.

 

[Quetzal]

The lower federal courts blocked the EO. So Trump and his people had no reason to do anything after that. Now they do.

Sure, but I would like to think they were working on the problem regardless. I cannot even begin to fathom priorities in the Exec. Branch, but this one should be near the top. (In my expert opinion. )

 

[Revoltingest]

My question is effectiveness, which is tough to gauge anyway. Also, does the data support the accusations? I am not convinced yet, but we will see.

I don't know either.
That Obama gave attention to the same countries suggests some continuity of a reasonable policy.

 

[Quetzal]

That Obama gave attention to the same countries suggests some continuity of a reasonable policy.

That's true. I would be interested to know where they are pulling the numbers from. It is difficult to see the data through the MSM.

 

[tytlyf]

So the ban is to prevent attacks, how many attacks have we had while this 'ban' hasn't been implemented?

 

[Quetzal]

So the ban is to prevent attacks, how many attacks have we had while this 'ban' hasn't been implemented?

Careful. This isn't a sound approach to this issue.

 

[tytlyf]

Careful. This isn't a sound approach to this issue.

Well, we better hurry up and get this ban going to stop all these attacks every day.

 

[Revoltingest]

So the ban is to prevent attacks, how many attacks have we had while this 'ban' hasn't been implemented?

It's about risk of attacks, ie, probablistic analysis.
Attacks are far & few between, so one can't judge that a policy is good
simply because we've had no attacks within a small time frame.