[cjeane]

> We're talking about two bans of 120 and 90 days respectively

Proponents say they are temporary measures, so that there is time to 'figure out what is going on'. No matter how you feel about this EO it was implemented in sloppy and unprofessional manner. It was poorly written, Agencies were not notified or instructed on the exact intent, there was no time for review from Legal Council. How am I supposed to extrapolate that this farce will produce better immigration enforcement than the already stringent vetting that was in place? When they have no better alternative I have to predict that these blanket bans get extended for 'safety reasons'.

> due to the 'persecuted religious minority' aspect of the EO, a Sunni in a predominantly Shia nation and vice versa would still qualify. It also lays out being open to reviews on an individual basis.

This is great conjecture, but it is unclear, at this time, if as implemented a Sunni qualifies for this status. You have frontline DHS agents deciding these case by case reviews without clear orders. I don't believe they will err on the side of possibly getting it wrong. Denying will always be the default.

> It's also not a Muslim ban.

It's obviously not a muslim ban, but that is who will be disproportionally affected.

[r_smart]

I don't disagree with anything you've said here, it's pretty spot on in my estimation, I just don't think it's a sky is falling kind of situation. I was trying to answer the question: 'What would it take for his supporters to turn away from him?' and keep it in the context of why this thing just isn't an abandon ship situation, though it is certainly a fumble in a number of ways.

|Proponents say they are temporary measures, so that there is time to 'figure out what is going on'

Wasn't there a report from DHS in 2015 or so saying that it was the case ISIS was looking to take advantage of refugee programs to get agents into various Western nations? And further, that dept. heads felt some concern about the efficacy of our vetting processes?

Whether such a vetting process could ever exist is unlikely, but it would seem this is kind of a 'get your bearings' order. Your criticisms still stand, of course, I'm just pointing out it's not a totally baseless idea.

[cjeane]

The current refugee vetting process is very rigorous and would be a terrible avenue for ISIS agents to get into the US and other western nations, although I'm sure they would try. The process I went through to get a security clearance was about an 1/8 of the refugee vetting process and it was an incredibly invasive process. Obviously no vetting is 100% effective, but I'm highly skeptical that there will be a better process in 3 months. Then do we continue to ban these people our of fear?

As you said the question is: 'What would it take for his supporters to turn away from him?' Trump supporters may not not have breaking point when it comes to helping those that they don't have a perceived connection to.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/29/us/refugee-ve...

[r_smart]

|Trump supporters may not not have breaking point when it comes to helping those that they don't have a perceived connection to.

This is kind of absurd. I think there would definitely be a point where they wouldn't support him on this. It's just that a 120 / 90 day ban of countries considered failed states / enemies isn't it. This is just a more subtle form of demonization. You're basically saying 'They'll agree to anything!'. I don't buy it. But who knows?

I think what is interesting is: What did it take to turn away from Obama? For me it was continued expansion of executive power, continued pursuit of destabilizing nations in the Middle East and continued support of erosion of civil liberties largely via domestic spying programs.

I'm expecting my answer to the Trump question to end up being roughly the same. I'll be pleasantly surprised if any of the above are missing. I'll be unpleasantly surprised if anything new is added. So it goes.