It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
National Security: One irony of the controversial new policy is that while its refugee ban and visa suspensions are purported to combat terrorism, the seven countries affected have not been the source of deadly attacks on U.S. soil . On top of that, the travel ban risks fueling ISIS propaganda that casts the Muslim world as America’s enemy. Elsewhere in national-security news, Trump raised even more eyebrows this weekend by appointing former Breitbart executive chair Steve Bannon to the National Security Council—while limiting the presence of the director of national intelligence and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It’s the first time a political strategist will get a seat at that table .
this was from The Atlantic's daily newsletter. I get it in my email. Actual real news and investigative journalism, professionally sourced and fact-checked prior to publishing.
It's about as fair and balanced as media can get. Check it out.
• For the first time in history, a president’s chief political strategist will be invited to attend any meeting of the National Security Council and will be a regular member of the highly-influential Principals Committee (PC). Now, politics finding its way into a president’s national-security decision-making is nothing new. But it rarely (if ever) gets a seat in the White House Situation Room—for good reason. To place a purely political operative on the NSC—alongside actual Cabinet members with national-security responsibilities or expertise—is an unprecedented move with profound implications for how national-security policies are developed and executed. To be clear, that concern is not confined to Steve Bannon. This would be the case no matter who it was.
Yes, Obama adviser David Axelrod regularly attended NSC meetings, as Spicer has said. But Axelrod noted he never sat in on a Principals Committee meeting.
Section 1. Purpose.
In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.
I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).
After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this section until compliance occurs.
Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.
Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.
the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest — including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship — and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.
If the US took in 10,000 refugees tomorrow, you would say, "Oh those 10,000 were safe, so why not the rest of the refugees waiting".
originally posted by: Tardacus
yeah it was,
he should have had a new vetting process in place before he started locking people out.
after it was in place then he could have said, everyone has to be re-vetted and it could take awhile, in the meantime you can`t enter.
originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Grambler
What do we hope to gain from refusing refuge to people who are desperate?
...What we're doing is sentencing these people to at the least abject misery, and at most death
Now I wait for the honest people to say: I don't care
originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
I do think the EO was rolled out quite quickly and haphazardly. With that admittance, I will also say that I think it is in general a good idea for a new administration, probably EVERY new administration, to review current vetting processes.
originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Annee
No it's not right....but according to most sources I've seen, the issues regarding those already in transit have largely already been rectified. So even though the EO was rolled out quite quickly and haphazardly, kudos to them for actually addressing the issues it caused...