In this inaugural episode of News World Order, Kevin and Tony discuss the President's most controversial executive order which has been dubbed the Travel/Muslim ban. Join us in our discussion about what an executive order is, how it works and how this order has drawn so much opposition. We take an analytical approach to this topic and get down to what it really is!
Show Transcript to Follow:
(Intro)Welcome to News World Order, with your hosts Kevin and Tony Alvarez. Where they take an Analytical Approach to the news and sift through the white noise of mainstream media.
(Kevin) Good morning, Good afternoon and Good evening. Welcome to the very first episode of the news World Order. My name is Kevin I'm joined today and always by my brother Tony.
(Tony) What's going on people.
(K) So this podcast came together as me and my brother were talking one day and kind of tired of listening to Fox News, MSNBC take a one-sided look on news stories and just kind of propagate information how to people that isn't necessarily true or as like I said it's at least one sided. So we kind of got together and thought about making something that would go out and take an aggregate of all these news stories, combine them and kind of try and find where the truth lies then all the stories because it usually lies somewhere in the middle. And that's kind of our idea with this podcast so hopefully we can educate everyone that listens because I know that we've educated ourselves in some of these topics that we researched extensively to get that information out everybody. So that's kind of the idea of where we're going with this whole journey that we're going to take together a little background.
(T) So we intend to do this weekly, we’ll see how it goes.
(K) We'll see if it works it's always hard trying to find the information trying to wade through the vast amounts of information out there it's a little bit more difficult especially for two people that have full-time jobs and other interests and things like that families and everything else. We're going to try and keep it, we’re try and do it weekly but we'll see how that whole thing turns out. We know that there's no lack of news stories out there to get information, to get content.
(T) The constant churn in the 24-hour news cycle. So real quickly just a background on me my name is Tony Alvarez as my brother stated previously. I am in the defense industry and I'm currently living in Newport News, Virginia which is actually our hometown from growing up so it's kind of unique to be back in this area after 20 years of being gone. My interests are kind of exactly attuned to what we're doing here it’s obviously sifting through political facets but also just broad range military insights as well. So hopefully my interests peak here and provide relative input to this podcast
(K) Cool, again my name is Kevin I live in the Tampa Bay area. I'm in the aviation industry I'm a pilot and have been one for the better part of 15 years and like my brother my interests are along the same lines. I think I get a little too deep sometimes into political talks and rants and so forth. But the reason again for the whole podcast was trying to find where the middle road is. And especially coming out of this election cycle and into the new Administration it seems like there it's a very divisive topic because there are so many people on the left that feel cheated or feel jaded by the whole system.
(T) Popular vote!
(K) The whole system, and there's people on the right to feel cheated because they had to pick between Clinton and Trump and either choice was kind of not really what they wanted. So I think we've got this really weird Powder Keg, so to speak, in society right now where you have one side that completely hates the guy and you have the other side that is like okay I got to get behind my president but then trying to defend some of the stuff he does there ar a loss too. So hopefully we can move through all of that and get to a point where everybody goes okay I know what's going on now, now let me make my own informed decision. So that's kind of where we're at
(T) Right It's kind of like what you said before there's a lot of vitriolic rhetoric that's out there depending on which news source you plug into and hopefully we can strike that balance. As we've seen over the first month of trump presidency there's probably no greater source of controversy than one of his first executive orders that he kind of launched the trial balloon and as we're seeing now it essentially failed in his endeavors here. So we’ll kind of jump in through that Kevin you want to run us through the agenda of the day.
(K) Yes. So like Tony alluded to there the first topic we're going to kind of jump into was the executive orders that he signed that has now properly become known as the travel ban. So I think in order to get kind of through all of this and kind of get to a point where we can have a discussion about what exactly this whole thing is, We’ve got to kind of dive down into a lesson, so to speak, as to what exactly an executive order is, what does it do, how does it work and then we can kind of push forward to figure out okay what does this thing entail. So what exactly is an executive order?
(T) Well so that’s an interesting point right. I don't think very many Americans who are displeased with the way this thing rolled out, even know what an executive order is so.
(K) I think you're right yeah, because I know getting into this I didn't really understand fully what executive orders was so.
(T) So let me, I think you’re clear on it know based on our research for the broader audience here. So executive orders orders are essentially legally binding orders given by the president and the president as we all know is the acting head of the executive branch. But these legally binding orders basically give direction to their federal agencies and officials who execute established policies or laws. And so you know, executive orders don't require Congressional approval I think that's one of the biggest issues here right Kev?
(K) Right I think so yeah. Because everybody you know, it not just president Trump right because executive orders have been happening since the beginning of time. But I think a lot of people get upset with them or at least find some negative in them in that it's kind of, with a stroke of a pen the president can basically make something happen right.
(T) Right so you have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress although it's done in a very rapid
(T) succession. The issue here I think is what we all know is you know that there is a certain amount of pause in government right. In a sense pejoratively label it as a slow bureaucratic process, but really the intent for government itself is to be slow. It's to represent the minority and if you have things that are implemented very rapidly you almost have a process in which the minority is overlooked and the majority rules the day. And that's really the deliberate parochial bicameral legislative process that keeps the little man from being stepped on.
(T) And although it's slow you know that the process of government is intended to be that way so that way you have the rights of individuals primarily the minority protected.
(K) But I think another thing to with an executive order that I think a lot of people don't understand, is an executive order isn't exactly a law so to speak right. It's not something that the president signs and it now becomes law. It's a path right it's a guideline to enact laws that are already on the books right
(T) Right, almost more of a handrail
(K) Right It's not just a blanket ok here's what we're going to do, this is the new rule. That's not what an executive order is, iit is a direction for agencies to follow. And I think that's the biggest out of all of it, is that we gotta understand that an executive order doesn't rewrite laws right it just helps, It helps agencies, it helps the people enacting those laws it gives them a guideline to follow. To get something out there so.
(T) Well put, and you bring up a good point. It's not creating new laws, but since it's done in such rapid, by rapid procedure with the executive branch you know it doesn't mean that it's unable to be overturned. And so if Congress doesn't like with the executive branch is doing it has two main options. So kind of like what you said before it could either go back and rewrite or amend the previous law that was unclear for whatever reason or it can be challenged in court and it's usually brought to court based on grounds that the order deviates from congressional intent of that original law our policy or it exceeds the president's Constitutional Powers both in section 3 and I believe a section 1 right?
(K) Yeah 1 and 3
(T) So here's kinda what is playing out in the both court of public opinion and in actual courts today with Trump's executive order. So what we have really is the question you know what is this ban, what is the executive order that Trump intending to get passed. So I think it's helpful to categorize it as it's being referenced in mainstream media. So the four kinds of bins if you will that is being placed into is really fourfold. You have the travel ban, the Muslim ban, the refugee ban and the Immigrant ban. So the travel ban we all know is not very helpful I mean it doesn't it it almost sounds like a travel agent or something like that right. The limitations in what they can do, so it's not protecting enlightening or explanatory given this executive order. So I think the next one is kind of based on that vitriolic rhetoric that I mentioned before it's a Muslim ban right. So when it was it was passed on the 27th of January now it seems so long ago.
(K) It seems like forever ago.
(T) Yeah but seven majority Muslim countries were barred from entry, but it doesn't ban all Muslims. So it's unfair necessarily to categorize it as a Muslim ban.
(K) Right because and also the other thing with it is yeah the seven countries that were listed on it are predominantly Muslim countries however they aren't the you know they're not on the top of the top of the list as far as the most
(T) Yeah and that brings up a point right it's. There's probably a solid counterterrorism argument that shows that this list should probably include more than just the 7
(T) But not downplaying it because it doesn’t ban all Muslim majority countries then you can't really necessarily label it as a muslim ban. The next one is a refugee ban, well twofold refugee ban and immigrant ban which is really the two pillars of this executive order. Reading over it, it's only about 3000 words it's not very long, it wasn't I don't think in our opinion I think we have talked about this, very carefully crafted.
(K) No not at all
(T) So there were some holes, but essentially the immigration ban bars entry for immigrants for a period of 90 days and in the refugee ban bars actually susppends the refugee program the refugee administration program for 120 days unless you're persecuted religious minority. And so you know you have this two very divisive parts of this executive order which really harkens back back to his campaign Trail right
(K) Of course I mean it's not like the guy. That's the whole funny thing about Trump right about his presidency at this point is I saw a funny meme, it was a picture on Facebook the other day and I laughed at it because it had president Trump on it and it said this is the first time in history that the population is pissed off at a president for doing something for doing what he said he was going to do. You know it's funny right, but it's also got a little bit of truth to it. Because he's doing everything that he said he was going to be doing. I don't think, I think you can argue and say that his whole draining the swamp idea, that's not really coming to fruition right with with the appointees that he's putting in there right he's taking big money and bankers and things like that and putting them in the government so he's not really doing the drain the swamp idea. But you know for the most part I mean shit let's think about it right his whole campaign was make America great again, make America safe again and I mean how many times did he did the topic of radical Muslim,
(K) Extremist Muslim so forth and so on, come out of his mouth on the campaign trail. I mean even now it still does right. I mean he did a speech not that long ago down in Palm Beach or somewhere on the east coast of Florida and it was still kind of brought about right. I find it funny that he didn't really talk much about it in his speech to the joint session of congress the other night. It didn't really come up, he basically he kind of skirted over it and said his administration is going to find ways to make the country safe. But he didn't really talk much about it I think and I think I might be
(T) Part of the reason why he didn't talk about it was he expended a lot of political capital with this botched rollout right. So kind of avoid the sticky issues in your in your speech and you know I think that was strategic tactic that
(K) For sure definitely the handler's definitely got a hold of him. You know and that was the other thing that i thought was interesting about that whole speech was he seemed extremely reserved and almost presidential right. Especially look at how he's been in the past, i found that speech to be pretty well done.
(T) No absolutely and you know I think everyone recognized that and you know I hit the little birdie chirping in my ear. You know the flip side of that coin is that you know we shouldn't be praising the normalization of a president a month into his presidency . We shouldn't be celebrating this fact. But I think we have gone off on a tangent you know circling back in you know it's really I think the way your kind of describing Kevin it's really this President although he promised those things on the campaign trail is now at the cusp of implementing these norm-breaking ideals and I think that's really the core of the issue. It's kind of shaking things up and so for the refugee ban and for the Immigrant ban, those two bins in which this executive order kind of resides. You have on the refugee side that norm-breaking activity where you know we habitually think of this program as a means to protect the persecuted. Think of you know the volumes of Jews leaving Europe in World War II or particularly close to us you know Cubans fleeing communist Castro regime. You know so we think of this Refugee program as viewing people as really not what they can do for us it's more about what we can do for them to protect them right. They’re in a situation that they can't control. I mean for us are on your grandfather political prison in Cuba, he couldn't control his opposition to the castro regime and for that he was persecuted and to think that you know if this refugee ban was in place today. And Cuba has had a long-standing exemption with the u.s. policy for a long time, but to think that if that was in place today We Were Somehow barred from entr. YOu that pretty thought-provoking. And then the second kind of norm-breaking thing is with the immigration ban and I think your right Kev, this is exactly what he ran on in his campaign and it was really to protect American worker maybe even to protect the American values and interest. And that's what you're really seeing here is that what you can limit by way of immigration either in 90 days or or longer it kind of strikes me at least as a way to protect the American worker either through protection against terrorism or like I said protect the American worker from jobs being lost really.
(K) Sure and the argument that it protects the American work right you can look at that and say ok I can understand that but then there's also the argument that the jobs that immigrants tend to take in this country are jobs the average American would never do right.
(T) Yeah the menial jobs you know they're kind of labor-intensive. You know I just went down to Georgia to visit some family and down there the Claxton poultry plant is is very big. No it's not on the level of Tyson I don't think, it’s not on the level Purdue but it's pretty substantial poultry industry down there and they had to shut down their plant for a think it was like two and a half days or something like that because of the the immigration roundup that's been going on. So it's really affecting people's day to day and to your point yeah I think there is an aspect of it of protecting American workers but you know really at the end of the day how much of that is true you know what the menial kind of task the these individuals.
(K) Right well you know the other problem a lot of people have with this thing is, ok you brought it up to is your protecting the American citizen against potential terrorist attacks right. A lot of people have a problem with the way this executive order was kind of pushed along That these seven countries that are involved have we've never had a quote-unquote terrorist attack on our soil from anybody from these seven countries right. The you know The argument brought up is that, where is Saudi Arabia in this and where is Pakistan in this. Because the hijackers for 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, i think i’ve got that i know Saudi Arabia I think I’m misspeaking about Pakistan. But the point is right is that if we’re protecting people against terrorism so to speak and we’ve listed countries that we we're not going to allow people to come from. Shouldn't countries that harbor terrorism be in there as well right.
(T) That's what I was kind of saying before this probably a solid counterterrorism argument that there should be more and I think they've alluded to that
(K) I think they have, them coming back and trying to get a new order passed, I think they are trying to reword that. But that where the argument comes from the people that are against this have a valid argument because we’re banning people from a country that we've never had a problem with right so I get where that's coming from when I get where that anger on this whole thing comes from. And I think you brought up a very good point right is World War II right the Jews leaving or the Cubans fleeing an oppressive country right. If we’re closing the borders. I mean the Statue of Liberty bring me your huddled masses you know your poor so you know I’m screwing that quote up, but that's the whole point right that we are a country of immigrants and when you block people from coming to your country what are you doing. What are you trying to accomplish.
(T) Yeah and I think to put it into very simplistic terms. It's kind of a weird way to look at it but In my screwed up mind that's the way I do. So you have a blocking of individuals coming into a Sovereign Nation right, well it almost put you in a place where your gene pool is very incestuous right. I think we have achieved Greatness by the individuals not necessarily born in this country right. We had a healthy Italian Immigration Movement back in World War II time you know we had Jewish immigration as well Asian-Pacific individuals. I mean this is a Melting Pot
(K) Of course
(T) You know of a number of different ethnicities, backgrounds and I think that's what makes us great. And you have what we're seeing today in the tech boom you know you have a very healthy contingent of Middle Eastern and Indian and Asian backgrounds that are really leading the charge in Silicon Valley and so to think that you know pushing people out or keeping people out helps the American worker. I guess to a degree right I mean there may be some job openings that come about from it. But at the same time you're severely restricting the talent pool
(K) You're creating a stagnation there's no doubt about it
(T) No absolutely, so in the long run what really does that do. So thats kind of a slippery slope I think and that's kind of what I you know lead off this segment with is that you know you really have a deliberative governmental process and that tries to take into account all the second and third order effects. And you're never going to get it 100% right but as you stated before Kev I think the rushed roll out of this was clearly botched and its failures resulted in its demise essentially. And so I think when they go back to the drawing board now it's going to be to kind of bolster you know on the margins where this thing was not well crafted and hopefully they get that legal review I mean I think we've talked about it, Banon and who's the other guy
(K) The Steves, I‘ll find it, Keep going with your idea
(T) Yeah anyways Banon and the other guy, i can’t remember his name right now his name escapes me right now, are the lead pens on this thing. And you know just saying that hey they’re not lawyers they don't have the legalese to craft this piece of legislation.
(K) Steve, it was Steve Bannon and Steve Miller
(T) There you go Steve Miller Band. Yeah to say that they don't have the legalese to craft this type of legislation and let them off the hook I think is short-sighted
(K) Oh it's definitely short-sighted. I mean you got, That's the thing that pissed me off about the whole thing is I understand the idea and I understand where he's going with it and I don't necessarily have a problem with it right. But the point is you have he's got the power of the American government behind him and with that comes a vast amount of info or vast amount of knowledge in all this stuff and it seems like and I don't know maybe he's getting better with it. Let me finish my thought and then I’ll go somewhere else with it. The idea that he has all of this knowledge at his fingertips and he used two guys to pen up an executive order that one aren't politicians and two aren't lawyers and they’re drawing up a legal document. You know it's just like dude what the what the hell you doing, Why Why?
(T) Yeah you command a lot of power and you have like you said a wealth of knowledge, tools, expertise and history behind you and to recoil and allow two main individuals to be the architects of a you know very critical piece of legislation it's some what shocking but again as we saw on his campaign Trail it's kind of doing exactly what he said. And although I think it may not be as far reaching as what his campaign message was. I think there was a little bit of reservation in that he only stuck with these seven countries, when he could have made it a lot more broader. But in the interest of kind of pushing this through the approval process he leveraged a short list of countries that were previously discussed and approved by the Obama Administration. But he's not outside of his legal bounds to kind of get us back to me know the discussion on his executive order. He's not outside the legal bounds I mean us code 1182 section F really gives him the legal Authority and that's kind of what we're referencing before these executive orders essentially provide directions or guidance to Federal Agencies by leveraging an existing law or policy and that's us code 1182. Essentially what it says is that you know whenever the president finds entry of aliens into United States is going to be detrimental to the interests of the United States he made by proclamation suspend the entry of aliens or restrict them any in any means he deems necessary. And so that's kind of what we've seen play out even though it's now tabled for revision on its way back in.
(K) Right so that's how we are where we are right because he use the law that was enacted in 1952 right. And he's using that law and then he's adding, he's putting his spin on it by using another I think it was an executive order by the Obama Administration, it may not have been , but the seven countries came from a list that the Obama Administration had drawn up as countries of Interest where, it was basically a warning to US Travelers that they should not travel to these locations. So you know he took that and basically if it's not safe for us to go there then the inverse could probably true as well right. So that's kind of where he came up with this idea and how we got from his campaign so to speak on dealing with radical Islam to now banning people from entering our country so that's kind of the
(T) Yeah and I think they’re going to have to clear up the you know the verbage here because it was very unclear. You know the Homeland Security had to publish an addendum shortly after the publication of the actual executive order to codify these seven countries because it wasn't originally included
(T) But then you're also if you just follow the letter of the law which many bureaucrats do in their implementation you have contradictory view where you know a religiously persecuted minority in Syria let's say if you have a Christian and in Syria which is one of the countries on the band list if he's also trying to immigrate to the United States while he's blocked in you know for a period of 90 days under the immigration ban
(T) But then he’s never, once this 90 day immigration ban is lifted he or she is never able to come to the United States because he's barred from refugee status under the permanent ban for Syria. So they are going to have to go back to the drawing table and make sure the I’s are dotted and the T’s are crossed per se. But you know this is not to say that executive orders in the past haven’t been successful I think as you said to beginning of time, it dates back to George Washington and in the early nineteen-hundreds the State Department beginning numbering them and that's kind of where at today. And there's been great examples of executive orders throughout history a few to just kind of recap is Harry Truman integrated the Armed Forces, President Eisenhower desegregated schools and President Kennedy and Johnson barred racial discrimination in federal housing, hiring and contracting. So all these things that we now take for granted were done by executive order and so I'm optimistic that they'll strike this balance and going back to the drawing table and actually produce a more clear document
(K) Yeah I like to think that they could I'm also from the school thought that because of how bad the rollout was on this one and because of how divisive this became I honestly don't think that this will ever get pushed through. I think that there's always going to be a hang up somewhere because if they would have pushed this out and actually thought about the verbiage and sat down and actually created a well written and well thought-out order that didn't create the turmoil that this has created. And this goes across the board right it goes to the point that it was protested airports, Washington and Minnesota created a lawsuit So I mean you know it went crazy it was like wildfire that it's so bad now and every. It went from a an executive order to now it's I mean it's got it it's a travel ban, kits a muslim ban its a refugee it's got all these different names. I find it hard to think that it will ever come to fruition, good or bad right
(T) Yeah and I think that brings us to our next point, is that there's poorly crafted document argument and then there's the poorly implemented document. I think you’re kind of damned on both fronts. It definitely appears as though it wasn't well circulated prior to Implementation. I think it put Mattis and Kelly in a tough spot
(K) Oh no doubt
(T) Really because it was as though they didn't even have a rudimentary understanding the implementation caught everyone off guard. I mean you have it almost a snap of the chalk line and people who were in flight coming from several different nations are as you said held up in airport. So you know it could have been avoided I think they just have a different method of implementation and that way you could have saw these problems afoot and change on the margins maybe direction and guidance for implementation.
(K) Here’s a question and I don't know if you know the answer the question or not but is it possible to put out information on how to go about an executive order before the order comes out
(T) Yes it's part of the staffing process. So you know clearly as we come to know you know the secretaries didn't really have a clear view of the document before. I mean what I've heard also is that the office of legal counsel actually saw the document but they didn't provide a solid check or chop on on the document. So you again we’ve stayed before that you know Steve Bannon and Steve Miller, the Steve’s, are the lead pen for this document yet you know that power that exists behind the executive really wasn't leveraged. I mean they should have no sourced this thing out part implementation got Homeland Security got potential even Department of Defense, office of legal counsel all these major federal agencies behind the might of the executive branch really should have been involved in this and that way it could have, you know the experience and knowledge behind those professional staffers and permanent staffer could have said hey look here's what you're missing you know. Often what we do in our agencies is you know a document goes out and there be a period of you know 30 or 60 days of staffing and a critical comment matrix is affixed to that document. And so you're getting administrative, substantive and critical comments back from every person in an organization to say hey look here's what you missed and that could have been done here to help these guys craft a better piece of legislation. But you really I think the real danger here and maybe it's been kind of corrected here lately as we kind of said in his speech. But before that you really had a danger of where we all thought that the individuals who he was appointing in his cabin as cabinet secretaries we're going to be the mechanism of normalizing what has been coined as an extreme Trump right you have Trump not a career politician more of a businessman and doesn't really know the protocol of the Beltway.
(K) Well yeah and I think a lot of it to is he’s used to running a business where his rule is the way right it's his company what he says goes. And I would imagine that there's very little checks and balances when it comes to a Trump business right. He pretty much goes out and he says this is what we're going to do we're gonna build a golf course in Scotland and were just gonna do it and it doesn't I don't give a shit who we pissed off we're just going to do it right. And I think he’s, I heard something I don't know if it was a program i was listening to and they were saying you know the thing that a lot of people gotta realize to is like you were saying right he's not a politician so he doesn't know how the Beltway works. Now is that it is that an excuse for him, absolutely not but the thing that people gotta realize right is there's always there's always a learning curve for a new president right. Guy takes the office whether he's a career politician or not there's a time there's there's a space there where he's still got to learn how the whole thing works right. Well here's a guy who is for the most part has never been in that circle and now he's running the country and I think his his problem so far has been he hasn't looked to his left and his right for help he's just kind of taking it on and saying I'm going to do this and that's it. Where that learning curve is going to be a lot steeper for him because he he hasn't been there and I think that to his detriment he's not using his staffers and his secretary to get things done.
(T) Right so his extreme views for lack of a better term haven't been normalized and so you know. His speech was really indicative of maybe a tidal change you know because he was like you said you know somewhat presidential there he avoided the you know look at me I won by so many votes right it was the biggest landslide since Reagan I think he’s always said. So he kind of avoided his standard stump kind of rhetoric and really moderated his speech you know prior to that that wasn't occurring so we'll see what landscape is shaped as we move forward here. But you know just a real quick summary of this thing right so executive orders again just guidance and direction towards federal agencies that are already established laws and policies. So it's really just the handrail like we said before of the way to get stuff done because a previous piece of legislation is either unclear or what-have-you. Congress is able to do two things if they're unhappy with the way executive order is being carried out they can either amend the previous law or they can challenge it in court which is what we have today. The ban is really kind of placed in four bins depending on how you look at it. It's a travel ban, Muslim ban, Refugee ban, or an immigration ban and although it's not outside historical precedence, I mean we have some great examples, this one is not so. But that's not to say that with revision back on drawing table that they can't get this thing moving along in its intended purpose. Finally as long as they stick to that legal Authority and and reference either that US code or maybe even broaden it to help clarify the problems with particularly the immigration side I think is really where the rubber meets the road and in protecting both Americans from terrorism and maybe the American worker from losing the future jobs. You know i think if they kind of clear all that up sounds easy enough right.
(K) Yeah you know and it's a, like i said I wonder if it'll ever come out I really I really do. You know I heard somebody somebody tell me the other day the bottom line of this whole thing right is a vetting process right. Because we we’re shutting down refugees, we’re shutting down immigrants for the 90 the 120 days and it was an idea that they were going to revise the vetting process right. That we were going to be able to track these people coming into the country and figure out in Trump's words find the bad ones right, find the bad guys.
(T) The bad hombres
(K) The bad hombres right. So that's the idea right but then the other the other side of that coin is can we really vet these people and I mean that in the sense of their coming from a country that for the most part I shouldn’t say the most part, they’re coming from a country that doesn't necessarily have the best view of America right. Whether that's because of our foreign policy or whatever it is, but there's no love lost let's just put it that way. So are we really going to get good information on these people coming from other countries. Like you can expect that a person coming from France right, that the French government has a pretty good dossier so to speak on that person right. They have a criminal record or their travel records whatever but there's a pretty good amount of information about that person that wants to come into the country and wants to to become a citizen of our country right. Whereas somebody coming out of say Iraq for instance, is the information that we’re gonna get from the Iraqi government going to be anything can we can use right. Can we really go back and find if this you know if Mohammed has a criminal record or has ties to terrorist organizations things like that if the government that he's coming from doesn't necessarily give a shit about us.
(T) Right and so I think you're teasing out a very good point. One is that on the immigration side, I think this tactical pause is in the immigration process is probably valid right. I think holistically there isn't a political official up in DC right now that doesn't have some issue with the way immigration is working right. And so taking a 90 days pause to make sure proper procedures are in place I don't think is a bad issue right. I think process should be reviewed and efficiencies found and then implemented I think that's a great thing. But the part that I think you were teasing out was particularly affects the refugee been because where the immigration ban will probably be reinstated and the two-year vetting process for those individuals is somehow improved by whatever conclusions you know the Secretary of State and Homeland Security come back to the president with on recommending their changes to the immigration ban. On the refugee side it's almost contradictory nature, we are relying on other countries to provide you know that review of their individuals to say they are okay to move into your country but it's at the same time they aren’t providing the necessary infrastructure, governance all that stuff to their own citizens and thus creating a situation in which refugees are the result you know. So it's very difficult to think that if the refugee ban is lifted, I don't think it will under this Administration, but you're putting your putting the government in a place to where they're saying we're going to accept these refugees because they've been vetted by a government that isn't providing basic life
(K) Right, their leaving their country for a reason
(T) Yeah so it makes it very hard to say that these individuals in a since have been vetted you know you can't trace back exactly what you're saying their criminal record or anything like that.
(T) Kind of allow them to come in the country under a safe pretense. So yeah I think you're right man but I'm hopeful that with Secretaries of State and Homeland Security they have the heavy to do. This executive order as it stands right now, God knows how much will change in the future, but they have to come back to the president and provide their reports on progress at the 30 60 90 and 120 day marks for each one of those pillars. So hopefully that tackle pause, I'm hopeful that it yields benefits but kind of like we were discussing before you know bureaucracy is slow and so to think that in 30 60 and 90 days you're going to achieve a
(K) That something is going to change.
(T) Wholesale changes right on the positive side is probably highly unlikely
(K) Yeah probably never going to happen right, it's just the way our government works.
(T) Alright man I think this was a good session and I think this is the inaugural New World Order podcast it was a great discussion and hopefully provided some enlightenment for our listeners and entices you to come back I would say.
(K) I hope so yeah definitely if you haven’t go to our Facebook page facebook.com/NewsWorldOrder give us a like. Throw comments on their, throw topics on the for us to choose for our next episode. Let us know how we're doing, if you like it great if not great but hopefully everybody learned something out of our discussion today. So with that I think we’ll wrap it up, thanks for joining us and we’ll talk to you next week. See ya
(T) Thanks guys take care.