freeman3 wrote:Well, we did keep Jews out fleeing from Nazi persecution...not one of our better moments as a country. We can give in to our fears and prejudices...or we can let professionals make reasoned assessments about people coming in to our country. It would seem that since 9-11 that our intelligence services have done a very good job in keeping the bad guys out and letting other people in. Trump wants metaphorically to get rid of the whole stack of hay in order to make sure the needle does not sneak in. That is just not right.

Christians are being slaughtered, so an exception would seem to make sense, wouldn't it?

This is not a ban. It's a suspension until proper vetting standards are in place.

I wouldn't agree our intel services have done a good job.

rickyp wrote:Fate

Christians are being slaughtered, so an exception would seem to make sense, wouldn't it?

In Syria Sunnis, Druze and Yazidis are being slaughtered as well as Christians.
But they are banned.
In Iraq, Shia minorities face enormous discrimination. But they are banned. Even if they've fought as part of the coalition against ISIS.

Fate

This is not a ban. It's a suspension until proper vetting standards are in place.

What was wrong with the current vetting standards?

rickyp wrote:fate

I wouldn't agree our intel services have done a good job.

The debate isn't about how well American Intelligence services have done in the US.
Since the person you note is an American......
Nidal Malik Hasan
September 8, 1970 (age 46)[1]
Arlington County, Virginia, U.S.

But about whether or not the current immigration and refugee vetting is working...
Point to failures in that system, rather than to American self radicalized lone wolves like Hassan.
Hassan, and others Americans like him, are in no way, is a justification for the immigration ban.

Why shouldn't Trump have the opportunity to review them? That is the question

Here are 4 instances of the intelligence community failing to stop someone re-entering the United States and committing terror acts.

Abdulazeez had drug and alcohol problems, and his family tried to place him in a rehabilitation program. The New York Times reported that limits on the family's health insurance coverage "thwarted their plan to have him go into rehab." The investigation after the shooting revealed that Abdulazeez "had serious psychological problems."

I was merely providing proof that the intelligence community cannot ensure safety, as Freeman inferred.

rickyp wrote:Fate

Why shouldn't Trump have the opportunity to review them? That is the question

No. He can order a review at any time. And should. And if there is evidence that there are better methods of vetting he should have them ordered a change.

The question is, why is there a need to ban everyone for 90 days in order to review the process? Can't people walk and chew gum at the same time?

What immediate threat, or evidence of breakdown in the vetting process would cause such emergent action?
As noted there were enormous disruptions and damage as a result of this ill considered ban. The Ninth circuit asked if the Administration had any evidence that there was emergent need. None was offered.There was no justification other than the Presidents perogative.

bbauska wrote:Because we have a border. That border needs enforcement. There are illegal aliens entering the country. There are people coming from "dangerous countries". That is why.

Are you saying we should have borders, but not enforce them?

Doctor Fate wrote:
There is no reason not to have a 90 day pause. No, Trump cannot walk and chew gum simultaneously. The reason? Because the so-called "Democrats" won't even give the man his cabinet. What they are doing is unprecedented--and un American. It's like they've all become Canadians.

At its most basic level, Mr Trump's tweet about the historic nature of the delays in assembling his "full cabinet" is demonstrably false.
As of 8 February, Mr Trump has had six of his 15 cabinet selections confirmed by the Senate, with several more awaiting final Senate approval. While he still has a way to go before his entire team is in place, it's hardly historic at this point.
Bill Clinton didn't have his final spot filled until 11 March. Republican George HW Bush took until 17 March. Barack Obama holds the modern record, as his last pick - Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius - didn't get her Senate vote until 28 April.
Only George W Bush, who like Mr Trump won the presidency without securing a plurality of the popular vote, had his full team in place within weeks of his inauguration, following John Ashcroft's confirmation as attorney general on 30 January.

Part of the reason it took so long to fit those last pieces into their cabinets is because those past presidents had to withdraw initial selections due to scandal or insurmountable political opposition. George HW Bush's defence pick, John Tower, was voted down by the Senate. Mr Clinton swung and missed twice on attorney general before settling on Janet Reno. Mr Obama withdrew commerce nominees twice and health and human services once.
So far, Mr Trump has stuck with his original picks - although labour secretary nominee Andrew Puzder has yet to complete his ethics review and has had his confirmation hearing delayed four times.
Puzder isn't the only one of Mr Trump's wealthy nominees who has had difficulty completing the Office of Government Ethics' vetting paperwork, which has contributed to confirmation delays. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross were among those who were tardy in complying with background-check requirements.
Mr Trump was also remarkably slow to come up with several cabinet picks. He didn't announce Veterans Affairs nominee David Shulkin until 11 January. Agriculture pick Sonny Perdue was unveiled just two days before inauguration on 20 January - an astounding fact, considering of Mr Trump's four predecessors, only four original nominations came after New Year's Day (George HW Bush's energy pick James Watkins was the latest, on 12 January).