The period that the overturned travel would have covered has passed, meaning had the original order not been overturned it would have expired by now... and as it turns out, nothing in that 90 day period happened to warrant an all out visa ban. In the days the ban was active, it was successful in screwing over people from seeing their families and pissing off our allies, but as far as national security is concerned, nothing was gained. When the travel ban was active, John McCain had warned that the ban put our mission against ISIS in jeopardy, CIA vet Robert Richter warned that the ban would impact our ability to recruit spies against ISIS in Mosul, and intelligence officials from allied countries had given the same warning.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38814346
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/jihadist-groups-hail-trumps-travel-ban-as-a-victory/2017/01/29/50908986-e66d-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html?tid=sm_tw_pw&utm_term=.753eab485ffa


As it turned out..they were right. The Iraqi parliament had responded to the travel ban by issuing an order of their own against the US http://www.newsweek.com/bid-reverse-trump-ban-iraqi-parliament-votes-outlaw-americans-550107

The State Department and the pentagon then contacted the Trump administration advising them to remove Iraq from the travel ban, and the Trump administration obliged their request http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/321731-trump-to-remove-iraq-from-travel-ban-list-in-revised-executive-order The new travel ban was promptly over turned by federal courts once again

The fact of the matter is the travel ban was not designed under the advise of national security experts, but was designed by a commission formed by mayor Ruddy Giuliani as a legal workaround for Trump's original campaign goal of "a complete shutdown on all Muslims entering the United States"

https://youtu.be/aGOwEOTYfuE?t=189

These are the facts, we didn't need a travel ban to make our country safer, the idea for the ban was nothing more than a washed up idea from the Trump campaign for political posturing under the guise of national security(it has been over 40 years since anyone from the 7 listed nations have committed a terrorist attack in the US). Despite all this, the administration is still defending the travel ban in appeals court.

This post was edited by TCassa89 on May 8 2017 03:51pm

Making airports great again

It was wrong, silly and meaningless from the beginning, but didn't Trump promise to do something like that while he was candidate? If he did then it was the right thing to try to fulfill his promise.

Nothing happened because of the travel ban obviously. Trump is keeping us safe! MAGA!

A shitty illegal promise is a shitty illegal promise.

if the ban prevented something during that time or in the future, or if it was meaningless is actually almost impossible to know
stupid conclusion, even if the second option is more more likely

does not change the fact that travel movements from these shitholes need to be controlled either way

purge the brown people

Lolwut? the very fact that nothing happened during the proposed 90 days of the ban illustrates that it was meaningless, there's nothing impossible about it.

Did anyone actually think that a 90 day visa restriction was supposed to have some significant impact? Our immigration is already incredibly strict anyway.
Not that you would see such results necessarily in the first 90 days- someone who enters in those days could commit an attack later. Duh. Theres no such easy quantification of whether it had an 'impact', but I don't think anyone really believed it would.

Naw, the whole real story was the bogus legal challenge being hurled at it, which will result in possibly either defanging the activist judiciary from overstepping its bounds so wildly, or basically make them judge-kings and usurp the powers of all the other branches of government in one fell swoop as they become exclusive arbiters of intent and qualify themselves to make national security determinations, with limitless contrived powers.

At least the ACLU didn't even bother filing suit against Trump's irrelevant religious 'freedom' EO because they point out its complete lack of impact

The ban excluded Saudi Arabia, which is the one having a history of bringing terror to the US. It was like not even they took it seriously, and just wanted to do something to keep their promise (which, I insist, I think was the right/coherent thing to do, even if the idea was stupid).



Still a promise nonetheless. People should get what they vote. If it's illegal and doesn't go through, then that's fine, that's why democracies have separation of powers... and maybe it will teach a lesson to the people who voted not taking this into account.

But imo a president has the duty of fulfilling his promises, even if they are bizarre.

This post was edited by zarkadon on May 8 2017 05:53pm