Fact Checking Trumps Travel Ban Claims

[Deleted User 8570]

The AP ran a fact check of some of Trumps statements defending the ban:

WASHINGTON (AP) — In the face of widespread criticism, President Donald Trump has staunchly defended his order temporarily banning refugees and nearly all citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries. But in a statement Sunday and tweets Monday, Trump misstated the facts multiple times.

What Trump said and how it compares with the facts:

___

TRUMP: In a Twitter message Monday, he said: "Only 109 people out of 325,000 were detained and held for questioning. Big problems at airports were caused by Delta computer outage."

THE FACTS: According to a federal law enforcement official briefed on the implementation of the order, nearly 400 green-card holders actually were delayed after arriving at U.S. airports after the travel ban was signed. As of Sunday afternoon, one legal permanent resident had been denied entry as a result of the order, according to the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the person wasn't allowed to discuss the matter publicly.

Delta Airlines did report a computer problem that forced the cancellation of more than 150 flights on Sunday. The chaos and protests at airports around the country began before that happened and were related to the travel ban, not delayed or cancelled flights.

___

TRUMP: In a White House statement Sunday, he said, "My policy is similar to what President (Barack) Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months."

THE FACTS: That's not exactly what happened. According to State Department data, 9,388 Iraqi refugees were admitted to the United States during the 2011 budget year. The data also show that Iraqi refugees were admitted every month during the 2011 calendar year.

The Obama administration did slow processing for Iraqi nationals seeking refuge in the U.S. under the government's Special Immigrant Visa program for translators and interpreters who worked with American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. That happened after two Iraqi nationals were arrested on terrorism-related charges. But that year, 618 Iraqis were allowed to enter the U.S. with that special visa.

Government data show that during the 2011 budget year, more than 7,800 Iraqis were allowed into the United States on non-immigrant visas, including tourists.

___

TRUMP: In the same statement, he said, "The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror."

THE FACTS: That is misleading. The Republican-led Congress in 2015 voted to require visas and additional security checks for foreign citizens who normally wouldn't need visas — such as those from Britain — if they had visited the seven countries: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. This was included in a large spending bill passed overwhelmingly by Congress and signed by Obama.

As the law was enacted, the Obama administration announced that journalists, aid workers and others who traveled to the listed countries for official work could apply for exemptions. There were no special U.S. travel restrictions on citizens of those seven countries.

___

TRUMP, also in Sunday's statement: "To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting. This is not about religion — this is about terror and keeping our country safe. There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order."

THE FACTS: Trump is right that there are many majority-Muslim countries that have not been included in the travel ban. But he's also being misleading. The executive order signed Friday does not specifically say Muslims can't visit the U.S., but it does create a temporary total travel ban for citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries. It also indefinitely bans Syrians.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani recently told Fox News that Trump had asked him to create a plan for a Muslim ban that would meet legal tests. Giuliani said he ultimately made recommendations that focused on security and what countries posed security threats.

___

TRUMP: The president also tweeted: "If the ban were announced with a one week notice, the 'bad' would rush into our country during that week. A lot of bad 'dudes' out there!"

THE FACTS: The immigration system doesn't allow the kind of "rush" Trump is describing. There are 38 countries, mostly European, whose citizens can visit the U.S. without a visa. But they must be approved for travel in advance by supplying background information to the U.S. government. Any other foreigner looking to visit or move to America for school or work has to get in line for a visa and be subjected to a variety of background checks, including reviews by federal law enforcement and intelligence. Before Trump's executive order was signed, some people were eligible to skip an in-person interview if they met a variety of requirements.

And the U.S. can always stop a foreigner from boarding a U.S.-bound flight or cancel a visa upon someone's arrival. A visa is not a guarantee that a foreigner will be allowed into the U.S.

[Bryce]

Yeah? So?

Fact is that the order is neither illegal nor is it unconstitutional as many on the left are standing in front of TV cameras and saying. (I challenge ANYONE to show me how this is unconstitutional)

Second, it isn't a "Muslim Ban" as many are inferring. There are dozens of countries with large Muslim populations not on the list. And, it is only a temporary halt until a secure method of vetting can be found.

What is funny, we finally have someone that is following through on campaign promises and that pisses people off.

[Deleted User 8570]

Yeah? So?

Fact is that the order is neither illegal nor is it unconstitutional as many on the left are standing in front of TV cameras and saying. (I challenge ANYONE to show me how this is unconstitutional)

Second, it isn't a "Muslim Ban" as many are inferring. There are dozens of countries with large Muslim populations not on the list. And, it is only a temporary halt until a secure method of vetting can be found.

What is funny, we finally have someone that is following through on campaign promises and that pisses people off.

There is a 1965 law that stripped the president of the power to designate groups nonadmissable, there is a strong case to be made that he is in violation of that law... it's pretty clear who we are supposedly "protecting" ourselves from... who are you trying to kid? The whole point is to keep "radical Islamic terrorists" out... so they banned everybody 90-some percent of whom are Muslim. It's pretty clear the intention. It's to keep Muslims from those countries out. There are several places (such as Saudi Arabia, where the 9/11 folks mainly came from) that much more deserved to be on the list... the whole thing has been hastily and poorly put together and is now being defended as if it makes some kind of sense to do a ban like this.

ISIS already took to the internet to recruit based on this ban, they hailed the thing for god sakes... we are far less safe now than we were before this. You can bend over backwards to say it isn't a ban because the 10 christians left in Yemen or wherever couldn't get in either but that's pretty incidental compared to the bulk of the folks who can't, who are all Muslim. Be my guest to bend anyways... it's amusing to watch you contort logic to make this thing work.

Try these:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... is-illegal

An immigration expert from the Libertarian Cato Institute agrees:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/o ... legal.html

It's not even a close call on the legality...

[Bryce]

If you are referring to the Hart-Cellar act, the EO as amended is perfectly within its limits.

Section 1182(f), which states: “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”

[Deleted User 8570]

If you are referring to the Hart-Cellar act, the EO as amended is perfectly within its limits.

The Immigration And Naturalization Act of 1965. Same thing. But if you read the pieces I quoted they make a very strong case that it's not within the bounds... That act specifically makes congress have a role in the matter... you can't just EO it into being. Especially in the case of legal refugees and green card holders... you can't ban them. They are legal.

[Bryce]

If you are referring to the Hart-Cellar act, the EO as amended is perfectly within its limits.

The Immigration And Naturalization Act of 1965. Same thing. But if you read the pieces I quoted they make a very strong case that it's not within the bounds... That act specifically makes congress have a role in the matter... you can't just EO it into being.

Section 1182(f), which states: “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”

[craig11152]

And, it is only a temporary halt until a secure method of vetting can be found.

The problem I see is a lack of any evidence the current vetting was not adequate. In other words a "solution" in search of a problem.

There are several places (such as Saudi Arabia, where the 9/11 folks mainly came from) that much more deserved to be on the list...

I don't disagree but the list is straight from the previous administration. So I guess it raises questions about why Obama had some countries and not others on the list.

[Deleted User 8570]

If you are referring to the Hart-Cellar act, the EO as amended is perfectly within its limits.

The Immigration And Naturalization Act of 1965. Same thing. But if you read the pieces I quoted they make a very strong case that it's not within the bounds... That act specifically makes congress have a role in the matter... you can't just EO it into being.

Section 1182(f), which states: “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”

But when it comes to legal permanent residents and green card holders this section does not apply so try again for them. Visitors, guest workers and refugees can be banned. Religion can also be used and that's a big deal.

[Deleted User 8570]

And, it is only a temporary halt until a secure method of vetting can be found.

The problem I see is a lack of any evidence the current vetting was not adequate. In other words a "solution" in search of a problem.

There are several places (such as Saudi Arabia, where the 9/11 folks mainly came from) that much more deserved to be on the list...

I don't disagree but the list is straight from the previous administration. So I guess it raises questions about why Obama had some countries and not others on the list.

It's actually the Republican congresses list... it was buried in a spending bill, but Obama made exceptions for journalists, aid workers and such and also didn't ban citizens of those countries. So it's a fairly large difference.

[craig11152]

It's actually the Republican congresses list... it was buried in a spending bill, but Obama made exceptions for journalists, aid workers and such and also didn't ban citizens of those countries. So it's a fairly large difference.

The last half of your comment is completely irrelevant to my point. The first part of your comment is simply inaccurate.

[Deleted User 8570]

It's actually the Republican congresses list... it was buried in a spending bill, but Obama made exceptions for journalists, aid workers and such and also didn't ban citizens of those countries. So it's a fairly large difference.

The last half of your comment is completely irrelevant to my point. The first part of your comment is simply inaccurate.

So this is inaccurate?

TRUMP: In the same statement, he said, "The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror."

THE FACTS: That is misleading. The Republican-led Congress in 2015 voted to require visas and additional security checks for foreign citizens who normally wouldn't need visas — such as those from Britain — if they had visited the seven countries: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. This was included in a large spending bill passed overwhelmingly by Congress and signed by Obama.

As the law was enacted, the Obama administration announced that journalists, aid workers and others who traveled to the listed countries for official work could apply for exemptions. There were no special U.S. travel restrictions on citizens of those seven countries.

Am I to understand this is only Obama's list and that the Republican led Congress that wrote the damn bill had nothing to do with it? To say it's only his list is what's inaccurate... you're acting like this was a partisan action on Obama's part to list them... I'm saying it was bipartisan....

[Bryce]

And, it is only a temporary halt until a secure method of vetting can be found.

The problem I see is a lack of any evidence the current vetting was not adequate. In other words a "solution" in search of a problem.

Well, here's a bit of evidence:

James B. Comey, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice: “We can only query against that which we have collected. And so if someone has not made a ripple in the pond in Syria on a way that would get their identity or their interests reflected in our databases, we can query our databases until the cows come home but nothing will show up because we have no record of that person…You can only query what you have collected. And with respect to Iraqi refugees, we had far more in our databases because of our country’s work there for a decade. [The case of vetting Syrian refugees] is a different situation.” (10/21/15)

If Comey doesn't have your trust, how about a comment from a lefty?

Jeh C. Johnson, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security: “It is true that we are not going to know a whole lot about the Syrians that come forth in this process… That is definitely a challenge….We know that organizations like ISIL might like to exploit this [Syrian refugee resettlement] program…The good news is that we are better at [vetting] than we were eight years ago. The bad news is that there is no risk-free process.” (10/21/15)

[Calvert DeForest]

Two words:

Saudi Arabia

Remember that 9/11 thing? It was in all the papers.