Did Trump say it's not a Travel Ban?

I thought that travel ban was considered the appropriate term instead of Muslin ban.

His lawyers have argued in court that it is not a “travel ban”; but rather extreme vetting. But he keeps tweeting that it is, and the judges take his intent on how the poorly crafted order was signed.

Rudy Giuliani said on Fox News that Trump approached him and asked for help in crafting a “Muslim Ban”.

Trump clearly thinks it’s a travel ban. Sean Spicer, however, has insisted that it’s neither a Muslim ban nor a travel ban. The problem is that he’s been attributing those sentiments to Trump (which isn’t entirely unreasonable given that Spicer is Trump’s Press Secretary).

Not sure about Trump himself but his administration and spokesman Spicer did begin by calling it either an “executive order” or “extreme vetting” WP article and quite vocally denied the term “ban”.

@rojo Your article makes me think Spicer is the idiot in this case not Trump. Trump is fine with calling it a ban, and it is a ban in my opinion. I don’t agree with having a ban, but that’s a side issue. It’s not a Muslim ban, I’m willing to accept that for this conversation, but it is a travel ban. Why is Spicer against using that phrase to describe it? Is it because now there will be exceptions for American citizens and permanent residents of America to be able to travel to and from those countries? I thought now there will be exceptions for that, as opposed to the first fiasco when they initially did a ban.

@JLeslie the reason Spicer is against the term “travel ban” is that higher powers in the GOP lawyer corral don’t want the term used because it shows there is/was a formulation to BAN MUSLIMS which would cause the court to continue to reject Trump’s BAN.

Spicer is in public relation position and is following the line from the lawyers.

Trump is not bright enough understand that his Tweets can be used in a court of law as background for the judges to make a decision. He seems to think he can tell the judges what to use for judgement.

^^Yeah, I realize that, but banning a country isn’t the same as a Muslim ban, which they have tried to point out over and over again. By trying to avoid the word ban it’s like they are agreeing with the criticisms. I think they should say “it’s a travel ban not a Muslim ban” if they want to make their point. Not try to screw around with vocabulary words to try to fool people, which fools no one. Trump is right in that he isn’t going to shy away from what he wants to do, and what it is. I think he’s wrong from the getgo with what he wants to do, way too extreme for me, but again that’s beside the point.

Wasn’t the ban originally supposed to be for 3 months from when it was originally requested, and isn’t it past those 3 months? That would make the whole issue moot. The idea was that the need for the ban was a national emergency to allow the vetting process to be reviewed. Well, they have had plenty of time to do their vetting. There is no need for a ban.

@LostInParadise the same question came to my mind. So, what have they done during the intervening months to solve some of the issues they were hoping to resolve?

I am going to go out on a limb here and say “nothing”. Except complain they need to do this to keep us safe.

The media is saying the same, that he hasn’t done anything in the last few months to analyze and change for the better the system.

Vetting for refugees is already strict, but he tried to completely ban everyone coming from those countries, so it’s not just getting the refugees, it has to do with visas and border control I guess. In his mind. Or, he just didn’t think it through (the most likely) and didn’t predict what his order would exactly mean.

@JLeslie It was and is intended as A Muslim Ban. When first introduced with the Executive Order in January, it was noted that persecuted Christians would receive expedited visa approval.

@zenvelo I’m not arguing whether it is or isn’t. I’m saying the administration has said all along it isn’t a Muslim ban, but that it is a travel ban from those countries. It seems stupid to try to say it isn’t a travel ban.

As far as whether it’s a Muslim ban, we’ll, Muslims are still coming in from plenty of other countries. Letting in Christians who possibly have their lives more in danger isn’t necessarily much different than letting in other people who seek asylum for religious persecution. That is legal. We can favor a religion for entry if they are targeted. I realize from these countries Muslims are also in danger.

I’m against the ban as I’ve said, but I do see how some would see some logic with giving the Christians priority. I have said for years that we should be helping the Christians get out of some of these countries. Their churches are being taken over and desecrated. Their bibles from hundreds of years ago have been destroyed. They have their lives threatened. They are a minority population in a crazy theocracy in a lot if these countries. I wish I could take in ten Syrian families, I don’t care what religion they are. South Sudan isn’t on the list I don’t think, but one of our reporters (who by the way is just a total pleasure to converse with. Many of the African reporters have a disposition and sweetness that is truly remarkable) I couldn’t pay him, I paid his wife in Uganda instead. I think she went there to be in a safer place. It breaks my heart.

I think Trump’s thinking, which I think is flawed, is we are less likely to import a terrorists if they are Christian. It doesn’t have to be interpreted as a Muslim ban, just a paranoid ban.

@JLeslie they said it was a ban on Muslims. Take them at their word. Quit defending them

The whole thing is discriminatory showboating anyway.

^^Don’t you think that could imply Muslims from those countries?