Posted by Tina
Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly testified before the Homeland Security Committee in Congress today to express frustration regarding his departments’ ability to keep Americans safe. His biggest concern is the President’s executive order limiting travel from certain nations where terrorists have developed strongholds and training centers. Kelly read the following statement:
The president has issue clear direction in the form of an executive order to the entire executive branch to prevent the entry of aliens who seek to do us harm.
But the current court injunction, of course, prevents us from taking steps right now to improve the security of the homeland until we see how that court action plays out.
While some discuss, debate and argue the name, title or label that best describes the president’s EO (executive order), professional men and women like me are actually in the business of implementing the president’s intent to secure the nation, and we are doing that.
We’ll let the chattering class, the self-appointed critics, talk about the name. I just hope the Congress sees the wisdom of what the president is trying to do to protect America and its people and that the Congress are willing to work with those of us in the business of securing the nation.
Kelly said the injunction has prevented his department from, “studying ways to improve the security of the refugee program” and from “looking into the information that we need from each country to conduct proper screening…”
The anti-Trump obstructionist are out to hurt the Trump administration. I guess they don’t care much about the American people. Politics and power comes first.
Tina … I told you it would, and it is. All this decided incivility is putting a crimp in tourism bookings nationwide. You may be all for climbing into the hole and pulling the hole in after you, but the rest of us have livings to make. And even in the hole, Tina, you will not be “secure”.
Bannon, Kelly, and Trump have a faulty understanding of what makes for security. And they are, unhappily, not amenable to instruction. Consider this little gem from the past, courtesy of Salon:
“One reason it’s important to have a president who is capable of reading foreign policy briefing books and listening to experts is not just because those things increases their understanding of world affairs but also because they can provide a sense of caution and context about about a president’s words and actions on the world stage. For the most part our presidents have taken this aspect of the job very seriously.
There are exceptions. Recall that on Aug. 6, 2001, George W. Bush told his national security briefer, “All right, you’ve covered your ass now” after he was told that that Osama bin Laden was “determined to strike inside the United States.” And then he went fishing. We know how that worked out.”
One of Trumps advisors has said that President Trump learns very quickly. And to suggest that the man can;t read is absurd. Ever try reading a lengthy financial report and making sense of it.
If the cited “briefer,” and the President’s supposed remarks, were about planes being hyjacked, they were about hyjackings for ransom. Planes being flown into buildings was not on the radar. It’s disingenuous to suggest as much. And partisan garbage.
I know you think of yourself and your party as superior. Unfortunately the last eight years suggest otherwise. How else to explain the chaos created in several ME nations, the loss of ground in Iraq, the spread of terrorists into Europe, the rise in spectacular attacks, the millions of fleeing refugees (remember how much yiu bashed Bush), and the unforgivable act of negotiating with a terrorist sponsor, iran, in which the US got nothing?
Sorry old girl you’re on the wrong track. We may both be trashing Trumps security and foreign policy a few years from now but I insist on two things, 1. He gets a fair shot, and 2. You acknowledge those who work to undermine his efforts as part of the problem.
Kelly said the injunction has prevented his department from, “studying ways to improve the security of the refugee program” and from “looking into the information that we need from each country to conduct proper screening…”
I don’t think he’s being honest here. From FactCheck:
In a March 21 court filing, the Hawaii attorney general’s office said: “The Government could engage in appropriate consultations and an appropriate review of the immigration system as a whole independent of this Order; it simply cannot do so as part and parcel of effectuating the President’s promise to implement a Muslim ban.”
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/06/trumps-tweets-twist-facts/
His line about it not mattering whether or not it’s a ban is hilarious. It was Trump’s own team that defending the ban by saying it wasn’t a ban; now Trump is, once again, contradicting his own spokespeople! Can you imagine how much it must suck to work for this guy? He’s sabotaging his own case. He can’t help himself.
And of course, there is no evidence that such a ban would help keep our country safe at all.
Chris, kudos. As long as you continue to keep your posts on this high level of reasonable and responsible posting nobody should take issue with your right to free speech. This sort of post keeps us fair and balanced. If its good enough for the Constitution to recognize the need for checks and balances, its good enough for PS. ; )
Trumps problem is he is not practiced in political speak where he must parse his every word.
Trump haters are playing word games, especially gotcha. They have no desire to get what Trump is actually thinking or planning.
I’d accept your analysis as more genuine if you could acknowledged that the courts are acting in partisan fashion. Alan Dershowitz:
And finally Trump, like most of the rest of us on the right distinguish between dangerous radical Islamic terrorists. Your side refuses to accept or make that distinction, preferring to ignore the facts in favor of not offending. it’s my view that acting as if we lump all Muslims together does more to offend and to create an illusion of hatred from the right, an ugly political tactic.
I agree with Jack about your posting and appreciate the effort.
Thanks, Jack and Tina.
Tina: “And finally Trump, like most of the rest of us on the right distinguish between dangerous radical Islamic terrorists. Your side refuses to accept or make that distinction, preferring to ignore the facts in favor of not offending. it’s my view that acting as if we lump all Muslims together does more to offend and to create an illusion of hatred from the right, an ugly political tactic.”
I don’t understand this comment. Trump’s travel ban very clearly did not distinguish between ordinary Muslims and radical Islamic terrorists; it simply banned all people from seven Muslim-majority countries. Nor did his earlier comments during the campaign where he said we needed an immediate shut-down of all Muslim immigration. How is that “drawing distinctions?” How is that not “lumping them all together?”
Dershowitz says he’s laying his reputation on the line by defending Trump; I agree, but I don’t think he’s going to come out with his reputation intact. I don’t know if the same travel ban by Obama, minus the comments about a “Muslim ban,” would be found constitutional, but I would certainly have opposed it and found it bigoted. I do think it is fair, however, to consider motivation in determining the constitutionality of a law. Several courts have found certain voter ID restrictions unconstitutional because they found the Republicans who crafted them intentionally did so in order to make it harder for black people to vote. I think the same logic applies in this case; if a law is crafted to discriminate against a religion–as Rudy Guliani claims this one was, and as Trump indicated during the campaign–then it is plainly unconstitutional.
Thanks for the questions, Chris.
Trumps remarks were delivered in the context of defeating terrorists. Recognizing a rise in terror attacks in Europe and on our shores, recognizing the huge numbers of refugees being brought into our nation, and recognizing that the ability to vet individuals (distinguish the good from the bad) has been ineffective and disrupted by the spread and influence of ISIS, a temporary ban was considered imperative in defense of the nation.
Only someone who disagrees with Trump, hates him or wants to politically harm him would hear his remarks as a bigoted religious ban. The PURPOSE of the temporary ban was to improve our ability to make the distinction.
It’s unconscionable that the media and leadership of your party chooses to use this as a battering ram. Words do mean things. The words your party uses to harm their political opponent also harms and creates unfounded discord within the Muslim community. They are as damaging, or more so, to our national defense than the defensive messages Trump (stupidly) Tweets because of their campaign to bring down the president.
But it doesn’t surprise me at all. They play the same game with every special interest group they have used and abused in their quest for power.
“…I don’t know if the same travel ban by Obama, minus the comments about a “Muslim ban,” would be found constitutional…”
IF the court sticks to the law, Dershowitz will be vindicated, as will Trump. The court is bound to make it’s decision based solely on the wording of the law.
“Several courts have found certain voter ID restrictions unconstitutional because they found the Republicans who crafted them intentionally did so in order to make it harder for black people to vote.”
Based on what?
Assumption of intent is not enough…although the left engages in such on a regular basis.
The left also has a firmly established bias against conservative groups in the courts. It’s a well known fact that activist courts work politically to stop the right…including against the will of the people!
I’ve never seen so many mind readers as are in the progressive left.
Trumps remarks were delivered in the context of defeating terrorists. Recognizing a rise in terror attacks in Europe and on our shores, recognizing the huge numbers of refugees being brought into our nation, and recognizing that the ability to vet individuals (distinguish the good from the bad) has been ineffective and disrupted by the spread and influence of ISIS, a temporary ban was considered imperative in defense of the nation.
Well, the ban was blocked…and we haven’t been attacked by a refugee or immigrant from any of the seven countries yet. So how imperative could it have been?
I am all for better vetting procedures, but that can be done without a needless and counterproductive travel ban.
Only someone who disagrees with Trump, hates him or wants to politically harm him would hear his remarks as a bigoted religious ban.
Well, that’s quite a wide group of people…plenty of people on the right, for instance, disagreed with the ban without wanting to harm his presidency. And his original plan was to ban all Muslim immigration…that is, by its very nature, religiously bigoted, even if you believe it’s justified by trying to keep out terror.
IF the court sticks to the law, Dershowitz will be vindicated, as will Trump.
I disagree. As Sally Yates pointed out to Ted Cruz in her testimony, the INA explicitly forbids discrimination based on national origin:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2017/05/08/ted-cruz-gets-into-heated-legal-exchange-with-sally-yates-prompting-laughter-and-groans/9Wf3FkwoG4TWPar6iQPapO/story.html
Based on what?
Based on many factors, including that Republicans blocked alterations to the voter ID laws to make it easier for legal minority citizens to vote:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/us/federal-judge-strikes-down-texas-voter-id-law.html?_r=0
Collecting data on people? yet ignore foreign intelligence on 911?
The false Flags?
Attacking any citizens who try to battle for their rights on their own land? #DAPL
They are not protecting citizens they are protecting profits
The travel ban is stupid. They bring in terrorists.
Again biggest question is who are the Awan Bros selling the US intelligence to?
How did they know those Navy Seals were coming? people are loosing their lives and all we can talk about is Trumps stupid moves.
Agreed our media spends too much time trying to bring down the President based on stupid allegations.
We are a blog that discusses current events and items in the news.
You are free to bring factual evidence to light here at Post Scripts. Instead you like to throw spit balls and suggest nefarious crimes without evidence.
You seem to exist only to wag your finger at others of whom you know little.
Why all the hate?
Chris: ” how imperative could it have been?”
Ask the people in the Florida nightclub attack or the people in the San Bernardino attack. I imagine from their perspective it can;t happen soon enough cause it didn’t!
The previous administration warned of “loan wolf” attacks repeatedly but did nothing and the result was homeland attacks both here and in Europe. Moreso in Europe where the number of refugees is greater. We were informed that terrorists would be embedded in the refugee population. It makes sense to create a temporary ban to allow a new administration to make the changes it thinks is necessary to keep Americans safe. It’s just that simple and just that reasonable.
“plenty of people on the right, for instance, disagreed with the ban without wanting to harm his presidency…”
I’m not convinced that that’s true.
“And his original plan was to ban all Muslim immigration…”
Campaign rhetoric not “policy.” Policy is something that has the power to be acted upon. It isn’t much different from Obama’s promise that our premiums would be lowered by $2500. Both are a bunch of hot air expressed for one purpose…to get the people aroused and anxious to vote for them. Republicans were rightly enraged by Obama’s feckless fangless defense positions and policies. The context was terrorism and national security so his words rang bells. Conservatives generally are not bigots no matter what you think.
Your opinions about Republican intentions are wrong and frankly stupid. Your leaders purposely push the lies because it works. You buy into it every time. You see us through a prism created through years of dedicated propaganda. They have USED and ABUSED people of color for decades for political purposes. It helps that back leaders are socialists in the Lenin/Marx vein and are politically disposed to use their people for personal power and financial gain also. Sick!!!
Ask the people in the Florida nightclub attack or the people in the San Bernardino attack. I imagine from their perspective it can;t happen soon enough cause it didn’t.
Huh?
The Florida nightclub attack was committed by Omar Mateen, who was born in the US.
The San Bernardino attack was committed by Syed Rizwan Farook, who was born in the US, and his wife Tashfeen Malik, who was from Pakistan.
Pakistan was not one of the seven countries impacted by the travel ban.
Can you explain how attacks committed by people who were not from the seven countires on the travel ban justifies the existence of that travel ban?
I think I can, because its not that hard Chris. The countries in question do not have a reliable government, they’ve been heavily compromised or they have no government to speak of and further they are a hot bed for Islamic extremism. Without having a verifiable identification method because of the turmoil in those countries and not being able to assure the travelers intentions, it seems only prudent to place a temporary travel ban until such assurance can be made with minimal risk. However, this is still a judgement call and obviously you are willing to take that risk, most others are not and that’s why we elected Trump. We generally agree that not exposing ourselves anymore than necessary to the threat of terrorism is wise. It has nothing to do with race, ethnicity or class, but everything to do with how we view common sense.
No method is ever perfect, but again, prudence says don’t trash good for the sake of perfect. I’m sure you see the world differently than I, and thats ok, but if I had to err it would be on the side of caution. If you had to err I am afraid someone might die. Thats not ok.
Great response Jack.
Jack,
Your argument above doesn’t answer my question. I asked Tina to explain how the two attacks she brought up justify the travel ban. Since only one out of the three attackers involved was even from another country–and that country was not on the travel ban–she can’t explain that, and neither can you; you didn’t even mention those two attacks in your response.
You’re also incorrect when you say “most others” agree with you on this topic; polls show a slight majority opposed to the ban.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/13/americans-arent-rejecting-trumps-immigration-ban-outright-but-it-has-a-tough-road-ahead/?utm_term=.44e6d0ab99f4
As an aside, I had my students write an argumentative essay on this very issue in my classroom for their writing benchmark this semester. A few made similar arguments to yours, and I gave high marks to those who supported their opinion well despite my disagreement, and the fact that I think it’s an inherently weak argument.
The Washington Post is a liberal rag that has demonstrably shown it is part of the radical progressive effort to take down the duly elected president. The title of the piece you cite is misleading.
US News cited a poll taken in February showing a majority 54% supported the president’s executive order with just 38% opposed.
In Marchanother poll was cited by The Daily Caller:
In June Newsmax cited Rasmussen:
In addition,a CNN, headline in March, “Five Republican-nominated judges signal support for travel ban” indicates disagreement in the court: “…whatever we, as individuals, may feel about the President or the Executive Order, the President’s decision was well within the powers of the presidency.”
Which is why the Supreme Court will overrule the lower two courts. The law clearly states Trumps authority in these matters as president. There is nothing weak about Constitutional authority or the precedents that will back up that authority.
An ACLU lawyer for the left made truly ridiculous argument in court as reported in The American Thinker:
The argument I made supported the fact that the ban is about terrorism not religion. I disagree that it’s weak. In fact the argument that Trump is a religious bigot is weak. It is, however, consistent with the attitude that republicans are bigots that your party works hard to instill.
The lawsuit is pure progressive politics straight out of the Alinsky playbook. It is meant to isolate Trump, demean him, and turn the people against him. It is meant to create a trial in the court of public opinion before the final ruling ever happens.
I’ve watched your party do this again and again over many decades. Trump doesn’t help his cause with his NYC brashness. On the other hand he also doesn’t take any crap from the slimy individuals who play this destructive, disingenuous game.
People are fed up with the games, the lies, the false accusations and character assassinations. They are also fed up with the fact that legitimate crimes go unpunished while phony accusations are treated as crimes. Dishonesty and corruption for the sake of political gain is wearing thin.
Our nation has real problems that need solving. The games are getting in the way and making your party look really, really bad.
I have.
Defeating such an enemy requires addressing the issue on multiple fronts. The two attacks were a close reminder that Islamic terrorists are still at war with us and intend to hit us on our own soil. Whether radicalized here or embedded with refugees the threat is the Islamic terrorist. Only an idiot would drop the ball on any front…as, sadly, our former president seemed all too happy to do.
You don’t get it.
Not my problem.
The remarks Trump made were made within the context of the war and refer to the terrorists that are at war with us. The nations named were named due to the fact that they are the hot beds of terror financing and training.
It’s common sense, Chris. You’re just attempting to make it into something it was not, which is your right, but not necessarily wise or smart.
“The two attacks were a close reminder that Islamic terrorists are still at war with us and intend to hit us on our own soil.”
And yet neither attack was from any country on the list. One of the attackers was from Pakistan; do you think Pakistan should have been included on the list? If not, why not?
You chose bad examples to support this ban, Tina. The travel ban would not have prevented either attack.
I must admit something in your favor: you and Jack have actually helped change my mind on something. Ive become a lot more pro-gun in the past couple years or so. How is your argument here any different from liberals bringing up shootings to justify new gun laws, even when those laws would not have prevented those specific shootings? You sound just like them right now.
You’re even using the term “common sense” in the same way Democrats use “common sense gun control” to justify unnecessary gun restrictions. In both cases, you can’t really show that the policy in question will keep us safe. It’s about doing *something* to help you *feel* safe.
“The travel ban would not have prevented either attack.”
Point taken, however, does that stand as proof for the future? Perhaps…perhaps not.
The bottom line is that if Trump, as president, deems it prudent to place a temporary ban it is within his authority to do so.
Immigration expert Hans van Spakovsky was quoted in The Blaze:
Your nit picking, Chris, and avoiding the larger issue of defense of the nation. The record over the last eight years show we did too little. I don’t think it’s going to cause the world to end if we now, as Jack suggested, err on the side of caution.”
“Point taken, however, does that stand as proof for the future? Perhaps…perhaps not.”
Huh? Of course those two attacks don’t prove anything about the future–that’s why it made no sense for you to bring them up.
Again, you sound just like a liberal: bring up a shooting, say it justifies the need for more gun laws, then when it turns out those laws wouldn’t have prevented the shooting, say it’s necessary to prevent future shootings. Can you explain the difference?
“The bottom line is that if Trump, as president, deems it prudent to place a temporary ban it is within his authority to do so.”
Again, Sally Yates already demolished this claim when Ted Cruz made it. The statute von Spakovsky pointed to in your quote that seems to grant Trump unlimited authority on immigration is from 1951. But he’s ignoring the 1965 law, the Immigration and Nationalization Act, that prohibits discriminating against immigrants in the issuance of a visa based on their nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.
I would expect a conservative to give precedence to the law that limits the authority of the executive rather than expanding it. But you are willing to give the president literally unlimited authority on immigration, even though it clearly violates the law. Would you have been willing to grant Obama the same power?
“…–that’s why it made no sense for you to bring them up.”
Acknowledged. As I wrote…you are nit picking.
The remarks Trump made were in the context of terrorism, not religion. The whole picture not little bits. Everything about Islamic terror fits in the context…many fronts.
During the Obama administration home grown terrorists became a growing threat (one front). The spread of ISIS gave the terrorists a base of operations (a state) from which to wage war (another front) and refugees began to flee into Europe. ISIS threatened attacks from embeds they would send into the West with the refugees (another front). Taken together ONE thing we can do is stop the embeds (to the degree we can) by pausing travel from the designated (Obama) unstable nations. (You should be encouraged that the man who was president just moths ago was considered…Obama chose to crap all over Bush by deeming the Iraq war stupid and walking away…huge mistake!)
One element that must be remembered…the terrorists adhere to a form of religion that is spiritual AND political and legal. Our Constitution protects the people from government interference regarding religion. Already there is a conflict based on THEIR designs! Our Constitution does not set us up as targets for radical zealots whose ideal religion authorizes them to kill and oppress us, including religious oppression.
These zealots do not wear uniforms and they do not signal their presence, rather they hide in plain site and wait to strike…by any means possible. President Trump recognized the pain and suffering of the victims of Boston, San Bernardino, Fort Hood, Orlando and others, he recognized the danger posed by embeds from nations that are hotbeds of terror, and decided he would do everything possible to prevent more attacks. His decision was a judgement call and I have to say it’s a call that’s a damn site more appropriate and sensible than the open arms, pie in the sky, can’t we all just get along approach that brought on these developments!
The context is BROAD. Try wrapping your arms around the total approach.
“But he’s ignoring the 1965 law, the Immigration and Nationalization Act, that prohibits discriminating against immigrants in the issuance of a visa based on their nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.”
Then why wasn’t it a problem when Obama did it and why did your lawyer argue in court that it would be okay if Hillary were president and issued the SAME EO?
I get that you want this to be about religion and make the case that Trump is bigoted and stupid. GOT IT.
But your case is weak because it’s based on politics and personal attitudes and opinions and not the law or the authority Trump has as President. It ignores the fact that President Obama
You are absolutely wrong about me Chris. I respect the law and expect our leaders to adhere to them.
At the same time I am exhausted and angry about the political games your party plays, using the law and the court of public opinion, to personally attack and bring down political opponents. The game playing is detrimental to our nations survival and strength and now it has become counterproductive to our war effort as commanded by a duly elected leader.
You had eight years. It’s over now. The former president’s record on this issue is abysmal. There is much to do to repair and clean up the mess.
This president deserves a chance to lead the war effort with a different approach. He should be evaluated later according to his success or failure and not (up front) on the opinions and attitudes of his political opponents and enemies or whatever sour grapes they feel they must act out.
Tina,
Thanks for acknowledging my point about those two attacks. Sorry I missed that earlier.
“Then why wasn’t it a problem when Obama did it”
Obama did not ban immigrants based on national origin, and that’s not what the DHS memo you linked me to says.
The memo says it prevents immigrants from certain countries from using the visa waiver program, which allows certain individuals to travel here for temporary stays without a visa. The memo then explicitly states, “These individuals will still be able to apply for a visa using the regular immigration process at our embassies or consulates. For those who need a U.S. visa for urgent business, medical, or humanitarian travel to the United States, U.S. embassies and consulates stand ready to process applications on an expedited basis.”
That is not even close to Trump’s travel ban, and does not violate the INA in any way. The INA specifically says it bans discrimination against national origin in “the issuance of a visa;” that obviously does not mean it bans discrimination against national origin when giving out visa waivers.
But you didn’t really address my point. Even if that action by Obama had violated the INA, why would you support Trump doing the same? You haven’t explained how the travel ban does not violate the INA; your argument was merely that Obama did it, so it’s OK for Trump to do it. (But Obama didn’t do it.)
and why did your lawyer argue in court that it would be okay if Hillary were president and issued the SAME EO?
He wasn’t “my” lawyer, and he was wrong. His argument was focused on animus, however; as I explained, there is longstanding precedent that if a law is motivated by animus against a specific group, it may be ruled unconstitutional even if the law itself does not clearly violate the constitution. Since Trump has exemplified animus toward Muslims–not only in his original “Muslim ban” comments, but also his bigoted statement about the Kahns (“maybe she wasn’t allowed to speak”), and his false claim about seeing “hundreds of thousands” of Muslims celebrating 9/11 on TV when no such footage existed, the travel ban could be struck down merely on this basis. Stereotyping a group and making up blood libels about them is absolutely animus and bigotry, Tina, whether you choose to see it that way or not.
The lawyer, however, ignored the INA, which is a much stronger reason why the law is unconstitutional; it overrides an act of Congress. A similar ban passed by Clinton would not likely be found to be based on animus, since she does not have the same history of insulting and lying about Muslims as Trump does. But it would still likely be struck down as a violation of the INA.