3

Quoting ABC News:

As a result of the Kentucky case, the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News

Trump's January 25 ban applied to Visa holders and, according to CNN, Green Card holders, as well.

My question is.: did Obama's 2011 ban apply to visa holders and green card holders like Trump's recent ban did?

  • 3
  • 1
    The January 25 order doesn't apply to Green Card holders (and Obama's 2011 order did not either). There has been a festival of fake news during the week end. – Joël Jan 29 '17 at 21:50
  • 5
    @Joël Green card holders were however affected by the order, and some administration officials did say that it would apply to them. I think it's rather less a case of fake news than it is of disarray and confusion in the administration, on account of a hastily executed and poorly implemented order. – phoog Jan 30 '17 at 0:32
  • > Trump's January 25 ban applied to Visa holders and, it does not apply to green card holders, as it has been clarified a few times. The fury is manufactured by people with an agenda onto people not sufficient to see through that agenda. – dannyf Jan 30 '17 at 11:50
  • 3
    @dannyf: That's wrong. The order DID apply to green card holders. Otherwise, the Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly wouldn't have had to several days later use his power under section 3(g) of the executive order to specifically deem entry of green card holders to be "in the national interest" (which is a term from the executive order) as an exception to let them in. – user102008 Feb 1 '17 at 1:47
1

First of all, there's no primary source to unambiguously answer this. All we have is hearsay from either journalists, or administration officials - usually from 2013, well after the fact. It wasn't done via published executive order.

Having said that,

  • Pretty much none of the sources I ever saw (many linked here), ever mentioned anything except refugee processing halt.

    (whether you want to call it a halt, a ban or a slowdown is semantics, really; but halt seems the most accurate term given the available details).

  • Logically it makes sense. The whole event was precipitated by laxly-vetted refugees having been admitted who shouldn't have been. Green card holders aren't vetted at all, so they would have any reason to be included in that specific move by Obama administration.

  • The vetting process for refugees took 18 to 24 months and needed sign-off of dozens of organizations, both domestic and international. The claim that refugees are or were "laxly-vetted" is without factual foundation. – PoloHoleSet Apr 12 '17 at 16:00
  • 1
    @PoloHoleSet A lengthy procedure doesn't guarantee anything. Those procedures can easily be done in a very laxly way, especially when done in large numbers - E.g. rubber-stamping every sign-off without even reading it. The "laxly-vetted" usually is based on hindsight, by pointing at people who made it through the procedure but in hind-sight should not have. – Sjoerd May 12 '17 at 12:48
  • @Sjoerd - not sure why you assume that's the case. There is no indication that it is. – PoloHoleSet May 12 '17 at 13:32
  • @PoloHoleSet - don't know why that commenter assumed that's the case, but I know why I did - extensive personal experience with INS/DHS. They are overly anal in some cases and absolutely ridiculously easy going in others - sometimes depending on individual employee. – user4012 May 12 '17 at 13:41
  • 1
    @PoloHoleSet - the problem is that you don't need ENTIRE process to be problematic. Just one weak link. The checks aren't all redundant. The end result (terrorists actually being admitted) speaks for itself – user4012 May 12 '17 at 15:29

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .