Timeline for Did Donald Trump exclude Muslim countries in which he does business from the recent entry ban?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 1, 2017 at 10:48 | comment | added | Wildcard | @Beofett, :D Actually, I was congratulating you. My first draft had "congratulations" in place of "reproof" but then I realized I would have to remove "hardly" for it to have the intended meaning, and I opted to change "congratulations" instead and put it at the end also to be sure I was clear. But now I have no idea if I understood your last comment or not. Proving, I think, that too many negations just confuses everybody. :D | |
| Feb 1, 2017 at 10:31 | comment | added | Beofett | @Wildcard your lack of an inability to fail to comprehend what I didn't leave unsaid without an absence of challenge seems to not be other than exclusively applicable to you :) | |
| Feb 1, 2017 at 9:40 | comment | added | Wildcard | @Beofett, you have hardly failed to avoid my reproof through your lack of demonstrated inability to state a sentence with that many contradictions while evading a failure to make sense. :) Congratulations. | |
| Jan 31, 2017 at 20:03 | history | edited | reirab | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 926 characters in body
|
| Jan 31, 2017 at 19:59 | comment | added | reirab | @Beofett Better? | |
| Jan 31, 2017 at 19:58 | history | edited | reirab | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 926 characters in body
|
| Jan 31, 2017 at 18:11 | comment | added | Beofett | You are saying "[the memes'] implication that those countries were excluded because of Trump's business interests isn't [correct]." Just because he didn't alter an existing list that happened to not include countries he has business interests with does not mean that the absence of those countries did not factor in to his decision to use that list instead of attempting to create a new one. | |
| Jan 31, 2017 at 3:53 | comment | added | reirab | @NateEldredge He did choose to use that list, but it would have been rather illogical to make yet another list when there's already a list that is part of existing U.S. law for the purpose of applying extra scrutiny based on terrorism concerns, which was the stated purpose of the EO. Not that the EO was really logical anyway, but if one were going to make such an EO, using the list that already ostensibly exists in established U.S. law for that reason seems the most logical, least controversial, and least open to bias option. | |
| Jan 31, 2017 at 3:48 | comment | added | reirab | @ventsyv Your answer addresses the individual claims in the meme, but doesn't really answer the title question, which is whether Trump excluded those countries. Since, given that detail, the rest of it is kind of moot, I didn't really want to rehash everything you had already explained well enough in your answer. | |
| Jan 31, 2017 at 3:46 | comment | added | reirab | @Wildcard The other answer already had over +90 and accepted before I wrote this one, however, since the other answer didn't really address the title question, I added chose to add this one. | |
| Jan 31, 2017 at 2:38 | comment | added | ventsyv | This is not an answer because it does not address the claims. | |
| Jan 31, 2017 at 2:07 | comment | added | NZKshatriya | @NateEldredge Trump would be ripped a new one whether or not he chose the existing list. Not saying I approve of this move of his but it is what it is. And as this was a list created by the previous president, we should give THAT president partial credit for the ban :P | |
| Jan 31, 2017 at 0:40 | comment | added | Nate Eldredge | The Trump order used the existing list, but Trump chose to use that list, didn't he? Presumably the executive order could also have been written to apply to a different set of countries, had Trump seen fit to do so. So I don't think we can absolve him of all choice in the matter. | |
| Jan 31, 2017 at 0:38 | comment | added | Wildcard | This is the crucial distinction. Surprised it isn't the top answer, but oh well. | |
| Jan 30, 2017 at 22:39 | comment | added | reirab | @ChrisR The ban was authorized under a separate law (8 USC 1182(f)) which does indeed authorize outright entry bans. But, yes, the effect of Section 3(c) of the EO was to change the status of people 'from' the countries on the 1187(a)(12) list from simply not being eligible for entry under the Visa Waiver Program to not being eligible for entry at all. | |
| Jan 30, 2017 at 22:32 | comment | added | ChrisR | So in effect, he took the existing law and changed it from "more vetting from these countries" to "citizens of these countries are banned from traveling to the US." Is that a correct summary? | |
| Jan 30, 2017 at 21:47 | history | edited | reirab | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added more explanation about 8 USC 1187(a)(12).
|
| Jan 30, 2017 at 21:37 | history | answered | reirab | CC BY-SA 3.0 |