Image 01 Image 03

Most claims about Trump’s visa Executive Order are false or misleading

Most claims about Trump’s visa Executive Order are false or misleading

Debunking the supposed “Muslim Ban” and other accusations-gone-wild.

Yesterday Donald Trump signed an Executive Order on refugees and visa entry procedures.

You should read the actual EO, because most of the media and leftist pundits either have not or are lying if they have.

There are some stark policy differences about immigration and refugees over which people can disagree — those were argued at length during the election season. But the hyperbole and frenzy being exhibited in the media and by leftist pundits is hyperbole at best, fakery and lying at worst.

The Hyperbole

CNN is on overdrive, something appreciated by Clinton loyalist and Democrat operative Peter Daou:

HuffPo’s homepage expressed similar hyperbole:

I’ll go over key features of the EO and address the main accusations being peddled.

“Muslim Ban”

There is no Muslim Ban, even though the Twitter hashtag #MuslimBan is being used by opponents of the EO.

There is a postponement of entry from 7 countries (Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen) previously identified by the Obama administration as posing extraordinary risks. That they are 7 majority Muslim countries does not mean there is a Muslim ban, as most of the countries with the largest Muslim populations are not on the list (e.g., Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey, Nigeria and more).

Thus, the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world is not affected.

Moreover, the “ban” is only for four months 90 days while procedures are reviewed, with the exception of Syria for which there is no time limit.

There is a logic to the 7 countries. Six are failed states known to have large ISIS activity, and one, Iran, is a sworn enemy of the U.S. and worldwide sponsor of terrorism.

And, the 7 countries on the list were not even so-designated by Trump. Rather, they were selected last year by the Obama administration as posing special risks for visa entry, as even CNN concedes in passing:

The order bars all people hailing from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Those countries were named in a 2016 law concerning immigration visas as “countries of concern.”

The executive order also bans entry of those fleeing from war-torn Syria indefinitely.

Seth Frantzman has an excellent analysis of this Obama administration background to the list. Please read the whole thing. The short version is that the Obama administration selected those countries — whose names are not mentioned in Trump’s EO.

(image added)

Franztman provides this image of visa waiver categories, US Customs and Border Protection,* based on the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015:

DHS remains concerned about the risks posed by the situation in Syria and Iraq, where instability has attracted thousands of foreign fighters, including many from VWP countries. Such individuals could travel to the United States for operational purposes on their own or at the behest of violent extremist groups.

The U.S. Congress shares this concern, and on December 18, 2015, the President signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2016, which includes the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 (the Act). The Act, among other things, establishes new eligibility requirements for travel under the VWP. These new eligibility requirements do not bar travel to the United States. Instead, a traveler who does not meet the requirements must obtain a visa for travel to the United States, which generally includes an in-person interview at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate.

(added) Sarah Harvard at Mic also recounts the history:

So, in a nutshell, Obama restricted visa waivers for those seven Muslim-majority countries — Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen — and now, Trump is looking to bar immigration and visitors from the same list of countries.

Frantzman notes that no one complained when the Obama administration selected these countries:

What? So there was a Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 two years before Trump? There was a kind of “Muslim ban” before the Muslim ban? But almost no one critiqued it in 2015 because it was Obama’s administration overseeing it.

So for more than a year it has been US policy to discriminate against, target and even begin to ban people from the seven countries that Trump is accused of banning immigrants and visitors from. CNN even hinted at this by noting “those countries were named in a 2016 law concerning immigration visas as ‘countries of concern.’” But why didn’t CNN note that the seven countries were not named and that in fact they are only on the list because of Obama’s policy? …

Because mainstream media has been purposely lying, either due to ignorance or because of unwillingness to read the document and ask questions and because they are too ready to accept “facts” without investigating. They want to blame Trump for a “Muslim ban” because they were ready with that script since last year.

Trump Business Connections

An offshoot of the “Muslim ban” claim is the claim that Trump deliberately excluded countries in which he does business.

This argument is made in order to claim Muslims are targeted even though most of the Muslim world is not affected.

Here are some of the “news” headlines from major publications:

The problem, of course, is that Trump worked off of the Obama administration’s list of particularly risky countries for visa entry. To lay the blame on Trump’s business interests is a lie, or as Frantzman puts it, fake news:

Most disingenuous, truly bordering on fake news, are the reports that claimed the seven countries were connected to Trump business interests, as if Obama’s DHS picked them because of Trump?

It’s an Absolute Ban

The “ban” is not without exceptions. There are categories of visa holders who still may enter even from those 7 countries:

Sec. 3(c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), 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).

Also, the EO allows exceptions on a case by case basis from those 7 countries:

Sec.3(g) 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.

This Ends Refugees Coming to the U.S.

There is a halt to refugee processing, but it is temporary, for 120 days. Moreover, for people already going through the process, this is merely a delay not an ending, because they can resume processing once the system restarts in 120 days:

Sec. 5. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days. During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application and adjudication process to determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additional procedures. Refugee applicants who are already in the USRAP process may be admitted upon the initiation and completion of these revised procedures. Upon the date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only for nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.

Anti-Muslim Discrimination

There are accusations that one particular provision discriminates. It gives preference to those fleeing religious persecution in countries in which they are a religious minority:

Sec. 5(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.

This is being referred to as a de facto discrimination against Muslims because it mostly applies to Christians.

Well, that’s because Christians are the most persecuted religion in the Middle East, by Muslims. If there were a country in which Muslims were persecuted by another majority religion, they would get preference.

In fact, this religious persecution test has long been the case in refugee cases, but has been twisted to discriminate against Christians, as this September 2016 column by Eliott Abrams explained:

The headline for this column—The U.S. Bars Christian, Not Muslim, Refugees From Syria—will strike many readers as ridiculous.

But the numbers tell a different story: The United States has accepted 10,801 Syrian refugees, of whom 56 are Christian. Not 56 percent; 56 total, out of 10,801. That is to say, one-half of 1 percent.

The BBC says that 10 percent of all Syrians are Christian, which would mean 2.2 million Christians. It is quite obvious, and President Barack Obama and Secretary John Kerry have acknowledged it, that Middle Eastern Christians are an especially persecuted group.

So how is it that one-half of 1 percent of the Syrian refugees we’ve admitted are Christian, or 56, instead of about 1,000 out of 10,801—or far more, given that they certainly meet the legal definition?

The definition: someone who “is located outside of the United States; is of special humanitarian concern to the United States; demonstrates that they were persecuted or fear persecution due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.”

Somewhere between a half million and a million Syrian Christians have fled Syria, and the United States has accepted 56. Why?

“This is de facto discrimination and a gross injustice,” Nina Shea, director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom, told Fox News. Fox notes another theory: The United States takes refugee referrals from the U.N. refugee camps in Jordan, and there are no Christians there.

Dual Nationals

The EO does apply to dual nationals, but not in the way people imply, suggesting U.S. citizens would be barred from reentry.

Dual nationals who are U.S. citizens are not affected. The EO only applies to dual nationals from the 7 countries who travel on the passport of another (non-U.S.) country. The Wall Street Journal explains:

It also applies to people who originally hail from those countries but are traveling on a passport issued by any other nation, the statement [by the State Department] notes. That means Iraqis seeking to enter the U.S. on a British passport, for instance, will be barred, according to a U.S. official. British citizens don’t normally require a visa to enter the U.S.

“Travelers who have nationality or dual nationality of one of these countries will not be permitted for 90 days to enter the United States or be issued an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa,” the statement said. “Those nationals or dual nationals holding valid immigrant or nonimmigrant visas will not be permitted to enter the United States during this period. Visa interviews will generally not be scheduled for nationals of these countries during this period.”

Green Card Holders

There are reports that holders of Green Cards from those 7 countries may not enter the U.S. This is partially true, but it will be handled on a case-by-case basis, according to CBS News:

Senior administration officials told CBS News Saturday that for permanent American residents — those holding green cards — from the listed countries, their readmittance to the U.S. will be done on a “case by case exemption process.”

[Update: On Sunday morning, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus stated that the EO temporary preclusion for the 7 countries “doesn’t include green card holders going forward” but “you’re going to be subjected to further screening.”]

Detentions, ETC.

There are anecdotal reports of people being detained while trying to enter the U.S., or pulled off planes, or not allowed to board. It’s hard to know whether these reports — if true — are the result of policy or confusion. As with any large bureaucratic endeavor, there seems to be administrative confusion, as the NY Times reported in a story recounting some of these reports:

But the weekold administration appeared to be implementing the order chaotically, with agencies and officials around the globe interpreting it in different ways.

Syrian Refugees

It is true that Syrians seeking refugee status are barred entry, and that there is no current time limit on that. Rather, resumption will take place only after security assurance are in place:

Sec. 5(c) 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.

This is consistent with what Trump said during the campaign.

Conclusion: Policy Differences Don’t Justify Fake News

It is possible to criticize the EO and Trump visa/refugee policy without hyperbole and fakery. That opponents feel the need to make false and misleading accusations is a signal that they fear losing the policy argument on its merits.

[* the wording of this sentence was changed and the quote added after publication to clarify the source of the image]



Related post, Federal Court issues temporary partial stay of Trump Executive Order (Update: Copy of Order)


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


It just doesn’t matter to the anti-Trump folks. Slander, lying and misrepresentation are going to run amok b/c the media and the left are in tote meltdown. It’s the 1960s all over again. The Sunday shows are going to be frightful.

Thanks, Prof, for this excellent summary.
As are so many other Americans, I am in awe of all that POTUS is doing.

Even regular people like me, think this is a good idea, but the liberals are going to have heart attacks. More please!

    shinitaru in reply to RaiderRay. | January 29, 2017 at 3:07 pm

    Admit it, the only reason you think this is a good idea is because you believe that it will give liberals a heart attack. I bet you haven’t given it much thought beyond that.

      AuntJane in reply to shinitaru. | January 29, 2017 at 8:00 pm

      I think President Trump is a breath of fresh air!! Imagine a president who starts doing what he promised on his first day in office!! But it has been great fun to watch the liberal/anti-Trumpers have hissy fits and spin around on one ear!
      BTW get ready, the false news reports filling internet!!

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to shinitaru. | January 30, 2017 at 1:56 pm

      Hey, don’t you have to have a heart to have a heart attack?




(Sorry, old news by now, but I really like seeing it in print.)

It’s fairly safe to say that the first reaction by the media to anything Trump does is to declare the end of the world, women and children hardest hit.

Then in a few weeks, announce a correction on page F-19 next to the classified ads for hair regrowth products.

    C. Lashown in reply to georgfelis. | January 28, 2017 at 8:48 pm

    The ‘professional journalists’ have learned that truth is not really what changes peoples attitude towards current events.

    They can freely lie at 2pm and come back with a correction at 6pm, and people will always remember the lie – very few will recall the correction. The ‘lie’ is what’s important and it’s the lie they use to move mountains.

      With internet search engines, all you will see will be the thousands of articles on the incorrect information. The corrected version will never make it through the listing criteria.

The great thing is that Trump is setting up the media yet again. These “bans” were originally put in place by Obama. Obama’s administration made the “Muslim ban” possible and the media won’t tell you

Excellent article and thanks!

I need to reread the EO again, but I scanned it for the word “BAN”. I didn’t see it – the words were “suspension of issuance of visas”. And there is a time limit of a certain number of days while there is a review of procedures. As you mentioned, the only unlimited suspension was for one country and that was until the President is satisfied with the vetting program.

I saw one twitter from a member of Congress on how the President should work with them – and then I read that the list of nations came from Congress! I guess they didn’t read the bill.

Another tweet complained that there were too many references to laws which made it difficult to fully understand what was going on. Those people probably never tried to read the ACA since there were many sections that referred to parts of the code and said to add or delete a word or two. You had to wonder what the impact of that change of language.

Most of the Executive Orders and Memos that I have read so far have contained references to existing laws and stating that the departments are to follow these laws. Trump is not making up any laws. Many have time limits on the review process. It all seems logical from a business point of view.

I just wish that the website had the EO and EM a lot faster. If the text is ready for the press, it should be ready as a document on the website. This one is not listed yet, but there are three dated the 28th.

Evidently, we need more lawyers in congress to explain things to …..wait a minute……congress is full of lawyers. Talk it over amongst yourselves.

Formerly known as Skeptic | January 28, 2017 at 9:21 pm

I would not be at all surprised to find that some of the more egregious cases of detentions have been due to intentional “confusion” about the order by Government employees who want these actions to be seen in the worst light.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | January 28, 2017 at 10:15 pm

Because he’s dealing with a hostile media – some of whom I suspect are deliberately trying to sabotage his presidency – maybe he should think about setting aside a block of time to explain “controversial” EOs in front of a camera. Or have the aide who worked on the EO and understands the details best explain it. Might avoid some of this.

“or pulled off plains”

They could be pulled off the plains, but I suspect it more likely they are being pulled off planes 🙂

Question Regarding Ancient History:

Does anyone, anyone at all, remember the MSM raising this sort of ruckus – hell, any complaints at all – when Carter not only banned Muslims from entering, he actually deported Muslim students? I remember the 1979 Iranian Hostage Crisis quite clearly, but there is no memory of the media going batsh*t crazy over Carter’s actions.

Oh, wait … Carter was a Democrat.

The 4th estate long ago declared war on Trump and now on the Trump Administration.

Vile liars!

    Milhouse in reply to Common Sense. | January 29, 2017 at 12:29 am

    Journalists are not a “fourth estate”, as they so arrogantly claim. Hardly any of them even know what the term means; if you were to ask them to name the first three estates, not one in twenty could do so.

Well, where to begin. So many inconsistencies within. Honestly, I doubt anyone will read all this, but it’s always fun to debunk conservative dogma (and usually pretty easy too, since all you have to do is assume they’re lying about everything, which is typically true). Let me count the ways: 1. Author claims that the Obama administration previously listed the same seven countries as posing “special risk,” citing H.R. 2029 as evidence when, in reality, H.R. 2029 only lists Iraq and Syria. More importantly, the Obama Administration didn’t write the 2016 appropriations bill, nor this one tiny section buried somewhere within the thousands of pages of the bill. Congress wrote it; 2. Mysteriously, the U.S. Customs & Border Protection website page that lists these seven countries did not do so as recently as last April. At that point, only Iraq, Syria, Iran and Sudan were listed. It appears someone changed it since then; 3. Author cites quote from conservative blogger Seth J. Frantzman, who cites H.R. 158 as additional evidence that the Obama Administration had previously discriminated against these seven countries in question. Like H.R. 2029, H.R. 158 was written by Congress, not the Obama Administration. Further, also like H.R. 2029, it only mentions Iraq and Syria. Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Lybia and Yemen are not mentioned within at any point; 4. Author cites various media sources calling out the fact that Trump’s EO did not include a single country he does business in and called them “fake news” (no shame whatsoever, the irony is palpable here). His evidence? That the Obama Administration chose those countries, not Trump. Therefore, it must have nothing to do with Trumps own business interests. This claim is particularly bold faced, as not only did the author lie about what the Obama Administration did (see above), but then he used that very lie to exonerate Trump; 5. Author erects numerous paper tigers when he argues that the EO includes exceptions to the ban and is not permanent. Those of us fighting the EO don’t take issue with whether or not it lays out enough “exceptions” that could potentially be used under extreme circumstances for maybe a handful of people worldwide. Or whether or not lawful, tax-paying American residents with green cards who get turned away from their home will perhaps be permitted to come back to their families 120 days later and hopefully find that they still have a job and a home. To be clear, those of us fighting against the EO take issue with its UNCONSTITUTIONALITY; 6. Author cites a highly flawed partisan conservative hit piece as evidence that Sec. 5(b) of the EO does not specifically discriminate against Muslims. First of all, the hit piece itself in question makes no claims and demonstrates zero evidence proving or disproving the accusation that the EO discriminates specifically against Muslims – I mean, how could it possibly have, since it was written last year? The hit piece, on the contrary, claims that Syrian Christians are somehow being discriminated against instead by the U.S. This is a widely debunked piece of garbage reporting with flimsy at best support. There are many reasons why the U.S. hasn’t processed more Christian Syrians, such as the fact that we have no idea how many Christians have fled Syria in the first place. Syrian Christians also tend to be wealthier professionals, and evidence shows many have fled to live with family in other countries without claiming refugee status. More importantly, the persecution of Christians by the U.S. is sanctimonious crap with zero basis in fact. It’s the height of arrogance for the group that is doing the persecuting to play the victim card and accuse others of persecuting them. Not to mention 35% of the Iraqi refugees currently living in the U.S. are Christian, so it makes no sense why the U.S. would suddenly start persecuting Christian Syrians. But, perhaps most importantly, even if it were somehow true that Syrian Christians had been discriminated against by the U.S. (which they haven’t), that STILL would not in any way, shape or form justify the decision to specifically discriminate against Muslim refugees. This is a very simple concept taught to most grade school children known as “two wrongs don’t make a right”; 7. Perhaps most egregious of all, author concludes his trash reporting with a sanctimonious lecture about “fake news” and accusation that opponents have made misleading statements, all after lying about the Obama Administration, using that lie to exonerate the Trump Administration, and then blaming the victim.

    Do you understand the concept of paragraphs? It would make your writing much easier to read.

    I also noticed that you put this up a 1:00am….did you just get home from the bar….and are you drunk?

      I gave him a down vote on style…. the text was hard to read on a tablet. I might give it a try now that I have access to a larger screen.

      shinitaru in reply to tgrondo. | January 29, 2017 at 3:28 pm

      What’s the matter? Large bodies of text discourage you? It could use some formatting but I did not find it difficult to read…which you clearly did not do considering your straw man reply

        Well Shin….not trying to start an argument, but I find “large bodies of text” visually unpleasant and difficult to read.
        Maybe you don’t…but I do.

        What is the purpose of this comment board? Is it the exchange of different points of view…or is it just to have a pissing contest?

        I’d just like this guy to organize his thoughts in a way that’s easy for everyone to read…Is that a radical idea?:)

    snopercod in reply to guidofawkes. | January 29, 2017 at 7:23 am

    You’re right; We didn’t read it.

    I did read through it all, but I don’t suggest other people do. Look, let’s get to the heart of this.

    White upper income liberals have decided that they’re to be the most outraged and most impacted by Trump’s election. Unfortunately, many of those people are reporters and editors, so if you want an accurate story about one of Trump’s fourteen executive orders, you’re not going to get it.

    Instead you’ll get something like CNN’s “President Trump’s seismic move to ban more than 130 million people sent shockwaves through the international community”. So if you’re just a normal lady or guy reading the news to find out what’s going on in America, you’re out of luck.

    Clearly DHS, State, and DNI have had the responsibility to impose restrictions on immigration for National Security reasons since they have both the information to make the decisions and the responsibility to do so. If they didn’t maintain a list in the Obama administration then they weren’t doing their job. The idea that Trump picked the list himself to protect his business interests is farfetched at best – national security decisions just aren’t made that way. So I appreciate the author correcting the misinformation.

Punctuation is your friend G!!

The news reports have to be inaccurate: its the only way to make them fit the narrative.

“…the New York Times has always — or at least for many decades — been a far more editor-driven, and self-conscious, publication than many of those with which it competes….”

At NYT, “Talented Reporters Scrambled to Match Stories with What Internally Was Often Called ‘The Narrative.'”

“You can see this in agenda-driven stuff like World War T and the Military / Campus Rape Culture hysterics. These are not news, they are planned campaigns of psychological warfare.”

FFS guidofawkes…

“WASHINGTON—The Department of Homeland Security today announced that it is continuing its implementation of the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 with the addition of Libya, Somalia, and Yemen as three countries of concern, limiting Visa Waiver Program travel for certain individuals who have traveled to these countries.

Pursuant to the Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security had sixty days to determine whether additional countries or areas of concern should be subject to the travel or dual nationality restrictions under the Act. After careful consideration, and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security has determined that Libya, Somalia, and Yemen be included as countries of concern, specifically for individuals who have traveled to these countries since March 1, 2011. “

So restricting immigration was OK when Bill Clinton proposed it in 1995?

@tgrondo – drunk with glee at the ease with which I’m able to debunk flimsy conservative dogma? Yes. Drunk after a night of drinking? Unfortunately, no. I had to endure this nonsense in a completely sober state of mind.

@snopercod – no worries. I never expect ideological extremists to consider facts that disprove their theories.

@tyates – interesting (not really). I like how you framed your response to my post as if you were going to provide any sort of factual counter evidence, and then instead just went on a diatribe about totally unrelated nonsense.

@mailman – reading comprehension is yours, M!

    This site allows nesting of comments – see that little reply button at the top right section of the comment. Please use it and the conversations flow so much better.

    Thank you.

      Flabio in reply to Liz. | January 29, 2017 at 12:03 pm

      “see that little reply button at the top right section of the comment” No, apparently not in mobile.

        Liz in reply to Flabio. | January 29, 2017 at 3:33 pm

        Thank you, I was unaware of that issue. My tablet shows the reply button, but I also access most of the websites in regular mode for ease of reading.

    mailman in reply to guidofawkes. | January 30, 2017 at 12:01 pm

    Ive got no problems with reading comprehension…I just can’t be arsed reading your dribble darling 🙂


@snopercod – when you post 1:30 a video of Bill Clinton from 1995 and you claim that said video demonstrates evidence that he advocated for the same ban on Muslims that Trump signed into his EO on Friday, do you just cross your fingers hoping no one will bother watching it and just accept your argument as fact? I’m genuinely curious to know, because for the life of me I can’t possibly fathom why you would erect such an easily verifiable deceipt.

To answer your ridiculous premise, even if the video showed that Bill Clinton advocated for a Muslim ban (which it most certainly does not), that would STILL not be justification for Trump doing so now. If you weren’t so lazy and had bothered to ready my first post, you may have already absorbed that much.

    Hey paid prog moron, read the constitution and the relevant US code regarding immigration and the power of the executive.

    You can then stomp your tiny little feet, wipe your tears, and spread more of your poorly written ignorant propaganda. We will ignore it, as such should be ignored.

    Can’t soros money at least find a prog commie that can write?

excellent explanation too bad the vast majority of folks suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome won’t read ti

@pakurilecz – I read it. In yet another stunning display of irony depicted by Trump supporters, you clearly won’t be reading my comment whereby I dismantled every single lazy piece of flimsy “evidence” that the coward and hack William A. Jacobson put forth.

    You poor demented fool. You’re IQ level is so low you actually think you made some point and wrote well.

    I suppose if you get paid by the word, writing skill is not required. It’s apparent here.

    I suggest suicide. It saves the world of genetic malpractice, reduces humanity’s carbon footprint, and potentially provides fertilizer to the plant life. I suppose there is a danger to the plant life however.

    mailman in reply to guidofawkes. | January 30, 2017 at 12:03 pm

    Its going to be a very long 8 years for you 🙂

Guido is under the impression that vomiting back Leftist Lies debunks anything.

@guidofawkes, thanks for the contrasting viewpoint and backing information. Regardless of party affiliation, I believe religious based exclusions are a bad thing, and that is here, even if it’s not spelled out for everyone. I would be more interested in finding out if this would also apply to minority sects… Shouldn’t they be considered an oppressed minority in some of these countries?

“guidofawkes | January 29, 2017 at 1:11 am
Well, where to begin. So many inconsistencies within. Honestly, I doubt anyone will read all this, but it’s always fun to debunk conservative dogma (and usually pretty easy too, since all you have to do is assume they’re lying about everything, which is typically true).”

Gideofhawks, you begin your poorly written diatribe with hate speech. Leftists are just brimming with hate. John Podesta famously hated the entire Catholic church so much he made actual front groups to sabotage it (and got caught because of security ineptitude). Dan Rather faked entire documents to sabotage Bush and got caught only because of computer ineptitude about MS Word not being around in 197x.

Why should anyone believe you, a hatemonger?

In fact, what kind of rotten person are you, exactly?


Let me count the ways: 1. Author claims that the Obama administration previously listed the same seven countries as posing “special risk,” citing H.R. 2029 as evidence [H.R.2029 – Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016]


… Franztman provides this image of text signed into law on December 18, 2015, as part of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of FY2016. Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015

{Image speaks for itself, but here is source}:

… Under the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, travelers in the following categories are no longer eligible to travel or be admitted to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP):

Nationals of VWP countries who have traveled to or been present in Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen on or after March 1, 2011 (with limited exceptions for travel for diplomatic or military purposes in the service of a VWP country).


“the Obama Administration didn’t write the 2016 appropriations bill, nor this one tiny section buried somewhere within the thousands of pages of the bill. Congress wrote it”

Meaning, Trump did not write it.

And, the size of the bill is irrelevant.

Leftist hatemongers, please make yourself scarce on this board.

    Flabio in reply to tsoete. | January 29, 2017 at 12:13 pm

    The only hate speech in this thread are from those not providing a counterpoint to this article. I’m not a leftist or hatemonger, but I’ll do you a solid and let you get back to your echo chamber.

Did Obama enforce the order? If he did how were there people that had visas from those countries?

The DEMOCRAT MEDIA freak show. Predictable, repetitive, dishonest. EXACTLY what Trump’s been saying for 18 months.

8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate…

    Lewfarge in reply to Dave. | January 29, 2017 at 7:00 pm

    Dave: I’m not a lawyer but I was going to post the same law citation. Would some of our professional legal eagles comment on this. It seems to me that this basically says that he can do this, I just don’t know if his actual Exec Order meets the “dot the i’s and cross the t’s”.

@Barry, project much? Methinks thou dost protest a bit too much. No seriously, keep the ad hominem attacks coming. They’re clearly effective.

    You poor demented fool. You’re IQ level is so low you actually think you made some point and wrote well.

    I suppose if you get paid by the word, writing skill is not required. It’s apparent here.

    I suggest suicide. It saves the world of genetic malpractice, reduces humanity’s carbon footprint, and potentially provides fertilizer to the plant life. I suppose there is a danger to the plant life however.

@tsoete – I know you think you made a point, but your schizophrenia must have kicked in as it was mostly just incoherent babble and redundant requoting of previously debunked garbage.

@dfp21 – you know there’s a name for your brand of servitude: prostitution.

[…] petition has been given a profile boost by inaccurate coverage of the so-called “Muslim ban” – an executive order which increases travel […]

The reason so few Christians in the refugee camps is because the Muslims rape the women, beat the men and sell the girls into slavery. Yet we want to bring the perps here because not to is bigoted and in-Christian or so the left wants us to believe

Well done article. It is a good comparison study over multiple platforms of media and prior government documents.

Too bad that its publicity would be shut out by the left wing as vulgar, lies, and misleading as to the truth.

Facts and truths are what we, the People, want!