Illegal for Trump to ban whole Countries?

[revelarts]

<tbody>
President Trump signed an executive order on Friday that purports to bar for at least 90 days almost all permanent immigration from seven majority-Muslim countries, including Syria and Iraq, and asserts the power to extend the ban indefinitely.

But the order is illegal. More than 50 years ago, Congress outlawed such discrimination against immigrants based on national origin.

That decision came after a long and shameful history in this country of barring immigrants based on where they came from. Starting in the late 19th century, laws excluded all Chinese, almost all Japanese, then all Asians in the so-called Asiatic Barred Zone. Finally, in 1924, Congress created a comprehensive “national-origins system,” skewing immigration quotas to benefit Western Europeans and to exclude most Eastern Europeans, almost all Asians, and Africans.

Mr. Trump appears to want to reinstate a new type of Asiatic Barred Zone by executive order, but there is just one problem: The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 banned all discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin, replacing the old prejudicial system and giving each country an equal shot at the quotas. In signing the new law, President Lyndon B. Johnson said that “the harsh injustice” of the national-origins quota system had been “abolished.”
Nonetheless, Mr. Trump asserts that he still has the power to discriminate, pointing to a 1952 law that allows the president the ability to “suspend the entry” of “any class of aliens” that he finds are detrimental to the interest of the United States.
But the president ignores the fact that Congress then restricted this power in 1965, stating plainly that no person could be “discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.” The only exceptions are those provided for by Congress (such as the preference for Cuban asylum seekers).

When Congress passed the 1965 law, it wished to protect not just immigrants, but also American citizens, who should have the right to sponsor their family members or to marry a foreign-born spouse without being subject to pointless discrimination.

Mr. Trump may want to revive discrimination based on national origin by asserting a distinction between “the issuance of a visa” and the “entry” of the immigrant. But this is nonsense. Immigrants cannot legally be issued a visa if they are barred from entry. Thus, all orders under the 1952 law apply equally to entry and visa issuance, as his executive order acknowledges.

Note that the discrimination ban applies only to immigrants. Legally speaking, immigrants are those who are given permanent United States residency. By contrast, temporary visitors like guest workers, students and tourists, as well as refugees, could still be barred. The 1965 law does not ban discrimination based on religion — which was Mr. Trump’s original proposal.

While presidents have used their power dozens of times to keep out certain groups of foreigners under the 1952 law, no president has ever barred an entire nationality of immigrants without exception. In the most commonly cited case, President Jimmy Carter barred certain Iranians during the 1980 hostage crisis, but the targets were mainly students, tourists and temporary visitors. Even then, the policy had many humanitarian exceptions. Immigrants continued to be admitted in 1980.

While courts rarely interfere in immigration matters, they have affirmed the discrimination ban. In the 1990s, for example, the government created a policy that required Vietnamese who had fled to Hong Kong to return to Vietnam if they wanted to apply for United States immigrant visas, while it allowed applicants from other countries to apply for visas wherever they wanted. A federal appeals court blocked the policy.

The government in that case did not even bother arguing that the 1952 law permitted discrimination. The court rejected its defense that a “rational link” with a temporary foreign policy measure could justify ignoring the law — an argument the Trump administration is sure to make. The court wrote, “We cannot rewrite a statutory provision which by its own terms provides no exceptions or qualifications.”

To resolve this case, Congress amended the law in 1996 to state that “procedures” and “locations” for processing immigration applications cannot count as discrimination. While there is plenty of room for executive mischief there, the amendment made clear that Congress still wanted the discrimination ban to hold some force. A blanket immigration prohibition on a nationality by the president would still be illegal.

Even if courts do find wiggle room here, discretion can be taken too far. If Mr. Trump can legally ban an entire region of the world, he would render Congress’s vision of unbiased legal immigration a dead letter. An appeals court stopped President Barack Obama’s executive actions to spare millions of undocumented immigrants from deportations for the similar reason that he was circumventing Congress. Some discretion? Sure. Discretion to rewrite the law? Not in America’s constitutional system.

</tbody>


David J. Bier is an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/o...s-illegal.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigration-ban-is-illegal.html)


I really wish there was a TEA Party or something that really cared about the constitution, the law and separation of powers.

[Drummond]

<tbody>
President Trump signed an executive order on Friday that purports to bar for at least 90 days almost all permanent immigration from seven majority-Muslim countries, including Syria and Iraq, and asserts the power to extend the ban indefinitely.

But the order is illegal. More than 50 years ago, Congress outlawed such discrimination against immigrants based on national origin.

That decision came after a long and shameful history in this country of barring immigrants based on where they came from. Starting in the late 19th century, laws excluded all Chinese, almost all Japanese, then all Asians in the so-called Asiatic Barred Zone. Finally, in 1924, Congress created a comprehensive “national-origins system,” skewing immigration quotas to benefit Western Europeans and to exclude most Eastern Europeans, almost all Asians, and Africans.

Mr. Trump appears to want to reinstate a new type of Asiatic Barred Zone by executive order, but there is just one problem: The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 banned all discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin, replacing the old prejudicial system and giving each country an equal shot at the quotas. In signing the new law, President Lyndon B. Johnson said that “the harsh injustice” of the national-origins quota system had been “abolished.”
Nonetheless, Mr. Trump asserts that he still has the power to discriminate, pointing to a 1952 law that allows the president the ability to “suspend the entry” of “any class of aliens” that he finds are detrimental to the interest of the United States.
But the president ignores the fact that Congress then restricted this power in 1965, stating plainly that no person could be “discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.” The only exceptions are those provided for by Congress (such as the preference for Cuban asylum seekers).

When Congress passed the 1965 law, it wished to protect not just immigrants, but also American citizens, who should have the right to sponsor their family members or to marry a foreign-born spouse without being subject to pointless discrimination.

Mr. Trump may want to revive discrimination based on national origin by asserting a distinction between “the issuance of a visa” and the “entry” of the immigrant. But this is nonsense. Immigrants cannot legally be issued a visa if they are barred from entry. Thus, all orders under the 1952 law apply equally to entry and visa issuance, as his executive order acknowledges.

Note that the discrimination ban applies only to immigrants. Legally speaking, immigrants are those who are given permanent United States residency. By contrast, temporary visitors like guest workers, students and tourists, as well as refugees, could still be barred. The 1965 law does not ban discrimination based on religion — which was Mr. Trump’s original proposal.

While presidents have used their power dozens of times to keep out certain groups of foreigners under the 1952 law, no president has ever barred an entire nationality of immigrants without exception. In the most commonly cited case, President Jimmy Carter barred certain Iranians during the 1980 hostage crisis, but the targets were mainly students, tourists and temporary visitors. Even then, the policy had many humanitarian exceptions. Immigrants continued to be admitted in 1980.

While courts rarely interfere in immigration matters, they have affirmed the discrimination ban. In the 1990s, for example, the government created a policy that required Vietnamese who had fled to Hong Kong to return to Vietnam if they wanted to apply for United States immigrant visas, while it allowed applicants from other countries to apply for visas wherever they wanted. A federal appeals court blocked the policy.

The government in that case did not even bother arguing that the 1952 law permitted discrimination. The court rejected its defense that a “rational link” with a temporary foreign policy measure could justify ignoring the law — an argument the Trump administration is sure to make. The court wrote, “We cannot rewrite a statutory provision which by its own terms provides no exceptions or qualifications.”

To resolve this case, Congress amended the law in 1996 to state that “procedures” and “locations” for processing immigration applications cannot count as discrimination. While there is plenty of room for executive mischief there, the amendment made clear that Congress still wanted the discrimination ban to hold some force. A blanket immigration prohibition on a nationality by the president would still be illegal.

Even if courts do find wiggle room here, discretion can be taken too far. If Mr. Trump can legally ban an entire region of the world, he would render Congress’s vision of unbiased legal immigration a dead letter. An appeals court stopped President Barack Obama’s executive actions to spare millions of undocumented immigrants from deportations for the similar reason that he was circumventing Congress. Some discretion? Sure. Discretion to rewrite the law? Not in America’s constitutional system.

</tbody>


David J. Bier is an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/o...s-illegal.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigration-ban-is-illegal.html)


I really wish there was a TEA Party or something that really cared about the constitution, the law and separation of powers.

I find this very hard to believe, no matter how convincing it APPEARS to be. It just isn't logical.

How on earth could Trump ever hope to enforce an 'illegal' action ?? There are surely checks and balances in place which even a President can't defy.

In any case, I don't accept any 'discrimination' argument within this context. The point is to keep out terrorists, to serve the cause of national security, to help safeguard life and limb. One might as well argue that all policing actions, everywhere, must immediately cease, because it constitutes discrimination against criminals !!

I think the real point is that the Left will say and do anything at all to stop an obviously highly motivated and successful President NOT of their choosing, or preference, doing anything that'll defy what they want to see. No doubt judging Trump to be a 'maverick', they think they can go into overdrive where he's concerned, and get away with it.

What Trump is doing, is badly needed ! The alternative extreme is to do what Angela Merkel did .. with the result that she's now created, provably so, an almighty security headache for her country. A lethal one.

[bullypulpit]

Well, revelarts, it should be obvious to anyone...besides Donnie's fans...that he doesn't give a shit about law or precedent. But let's look at the countries that made Donnie's list, and those that didn't.
Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen are on Donnie's list. According to statistics compiled by the conservative think tank, the Cato Institute between 1975 and 2015, not a single American was killed by any citizen from any of these countries. And, oddly enough, Donnie doesn't have ANY business interests in these countries.
Now, if we look at that very same data set, we see that four countries accounted for the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans. Those nations are Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Turkey, yet they appear nowhere on Donnie's list. And the striking coincidence here is that Donnie has business interests in ALL four of these countries. SO, you see, Donnie's list has nothing to do with protecting America, and everything to do with protecting his business interests. A clear violation of his constitutional duties, not that he gives a damn about those.

[CSM]

Note that the discrimination ban applies only to immigrants. Legally speaking, immigrants are those who are given permanent United States residency. By contrast, temporary visitors like guest workers, students and tourists, as well as refugees, could still be barred.


From the posted article....

Just another fake bunch of crap.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

<tbody>
President Trump signed an executive order on Friday that purports to bar for at least 90 days almost all permanent immigration from seven majority-Muslim countries, including Syria and Iraq, and asserts the power to extend the ban indefinitely.

But the order is illegal. More than 50 years ago, Congress outlawed such discrimination against immigrants based on national origin.

That decision came after a long and shameful history in this country of barring immigrants based on where they came from. Starting in the late 19th century, laws excluded all Chinese, almost all Japanese, then all Asians in the so-called Asiatic Barred Zone. Finally, in 1924, Congress created a comprehensive “national-origins system,” skewing immigration quotas to benefit Western Europeans and to exclude most Eastern Europeans, almost all Asians, and Africans.

Mr. Trump appears to want to reinstate a new type of Asiatic Barred Zone by executive order, but there is just one problem: The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 banned all discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin, replacing the old prejudicial system and giving each country an equal shot at the quotas. In signing the new law, President Lyndon B. Johnson said that “the harsh injustice” of the national-origins quota system had been “abolished.”
Nonetheless, Mr. Trump asserts that he still has the power to discriminate, pointing to a 1952 law that allows the president the ability to “suspend the entry” of “any class of aliens” that he finds are detrimental to the interest of the United States.
But the president ignores the fact that Congress then restricted this power in 1965, stating plainly that no person could be “discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.” The only exceptions are those provided for by Congress (such as the preference for Cuban asylum seekers).

When Congress passed the 1965 law, it wished to protect not just immigrants, but also American citizens, who should have the right to sponsor their family members or to marry a foreign-born spouse without being subject to pointless discrimination.

Mr. Trump may want to revive discrimination based on national origin by asserting a distinction between “the issuance of a visa” and the “entry” of the immigrant. But this is nonsense. Immigrants cannot legally be issued a visa if they are barred from entry. Thus, all orders under the 1952 law apply equally to entry and visa issuance, as his executive order acknowledges.

Note that the discrimination ban applies only to immigrants. Legally speaking, immigrants are those who are given permanent United States residency. By contrast, temporary visitors like guest workers, students and tourists, as well as refugees, could still be barred. The 1965 law does not ban discrimination based on religion — which was Mr. Trump’s original proposal.

While presidents have used their power dozens of times to keep out certain groups of foreigners under the 1952 law, no president has ever barred an entire nationality of immigrants without exception. In the most commonly cited case, President Jimmy Carter barred certain Iranians during the 1980 hostage crisis, but the targets were mainly students, tourists and temporary visitors. Even then, the policy had many humanitarian exceptions. Immigrants continued to be admitted in 1980.

While courts rarely interfere in immigration matters, they have affirmed the discrimination ban. In the 1990s, for example, the government created a policy that required Vietnamese who had fled to Hong Kong to return to Vietnam if they wanted to apply for United States immigrant visas, while it allowed applicants from other countries to apply for visas wherever they wanted. A federal appeals court blocked the policy.

The government in that case did not even bother arguing that the 1952 law permitted discrimination. The court rejected its defense that a “rational link” with a temporary foreign policy measure could justify ignoring the law — an argument the Trump administration is sure to make. The court wrote, “We cannot rewrite a statutory provision which by its own terms provides no exceptions or qualifications.”

To resolve this case, Congress amended the law in 1996 to state that “procedures” and “locations” for processing immigration applications cannot count as discrimination. While there is plenty of room for executive mischief there, the amendment made clear that Congress still wanted the discrimination ban to hold some force. A blanket immigration prohibition on a nationality by the president would still be illegal.

Even if courts do find wiggle room here, discretion can be taken too far. If Mr. Trump can legally ban an entire region of the world, he would render Congress’s vision of unbiased legal immigration a dead letter. An appeals court stopped President Barack Obama’s executive actions to spare millions of undocumented immigrants from deportations for the similar reason that he was circumventing Congress. Some discretion? Sure. Discretion to rewrite the law? Not in America’s constitutional system.

</tbody>


David J. Bier is an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/o...s-illegal.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigration-ban-is-illegal.html)


I really wish there was a TEA Party or something that really cared about the constitution, the law and separation of powers.

Really???
Say, how much Nazi/German immigration was insured back in the day?
You know, when were at war ...... hmmmmm

Well is there is there not a war on muslim terrorism? Now think before you answer. ok?
Sure there is and its those countries-where muslim terrorists abide, or else are in control over populations that he is banning them from coming here!
Maybe FDR , should have allowed the Nazi's to waltz right on in too!
You know, to live peaceful in our midst... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Like the muzzy's would... hmmmm.--Tyr

[Noir]

A ban of refugees, signed on Holocaust Memorial Day, outstanding. :salute:

[Russ]

<tbody>
President Trump signed an executive order on Friday that purports to bar for at least 90 days almost all permanent immigration from seven majority-Muslim countries, including Syria and Iraq, and asserts the power to extend the ban indefinitely.

But the order is illegal. More than 50 years ago, Congress outlawed such discrimination against immigrants based on national origin.

That decision came after a long and shameful history in this country of barring immigrants based on where they came from. Starting in the late 19th century, laws excluded all Chinese, almost all Japanese, then all Asians in the so-called Asiatic Barred Zone. Finally, in 1924, Congress created a comprehensive “national-origins system,” skewing immigration quotas to benefit Western Europeans and to exclude most Eastern Europeans, almost all Asians, and Africans.

Mr. Trump appears to want to reinstate a new type of Asiatic Barred Zone by executive order, but there is just one problem: The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 banned all discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin, replacing the old prejudicial system and giving each country an equal shot at the quotas. In signing the new law, President Lyndon B. Johnson said that “the harsh injustice” of the national-origins quota system had been “abolished.”
Nonetheless, Mr. Trump asserts that he still has the power to discriminate, pointing to a 1952 law that allows the president the ability to “suspend the entry” of “any class of aliens” that he finds are detrimental to the interest of the United States.
But the president ignores the fact that Congress then restricted this power in 1965, stating plainly that no person could be “discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.” The only exceptions are those provided for by Congress (such as the preference for Cuban asylum seekers).

When Congress passed the 1965 law, it wished to protect not just immigrants, but also American citizens, who should have the right to sponsor their family members or to marry a foreign-born spouse without being subject to pointless discrimination.

Mr. Trump may want to revive discrimination based on national origin by asserting a distinction between “the issuance of a visa” and the “entry” of the immigrant. But this is nonsense. Immigrants cannot legally be issued a visa if they are barred from entry. Thus, all orders under the 1952 law apply equally to entry and visa issuance, as his executive order acknowledges.

Note that the discrimination ban applies only to immigrants. Legally speaking, immigrants are those who are given permanent United States residency. By contrast, temporary visitors like guest workers, students and tourists, as well as refugees, could still be barred. The 1965 law does not ban discrimination based on religion — which was Mr. Trump’s original proposal.

While presidents have used their power dozens of times to keep out certain groups of foreigners under the 1952 law, no president has ever barred an entire nationality of immigrants without exception. In the most commonly cited case, President Jimmy Carter barred certain Iranians during the 1980 hostage crisis, but the targets were mainly students, tourists and temporary visitors. Even then, the policy had many humanitarian exceptions. Immigrants continued to be admitted in 1980.

While courts rarely interfere in immigration matters, they have affirmed the discrimination ban. In the 1990s, for example, the government created a policy that required Vietnamese who had fled to Hong Kong to return to Vietnam if they wanted to apply for United States immigrant visas, while it allowed applicants from other countries to apply for visas wherever they wanted. A federal appeals court blocked the policy.

The government in that case did not even bother arguing that the 1952 law permitted discrimination. The court rejected its defense that a “rational link” with a temporary foreign policy measure could justify ignoring the law — an argument the Trump administration is sure to make. The court wrote, “We cannot rewrite a statutory provision which by its own terms provides no exceptions or qualifications.”

To resolve this case, Congress amended the law in 1996 to state that “procedures” and “locations” for processing immigration applications cannot count as discrimination. While there is plenty of room for executive mischief there, the amendment made clear that Congress still wanted the discrimination ban to hold some force. A blanket immigration prohibition on a nationality by the president would still be illegal.

Even if courts do find wiggle room here, discretion can be taken too far. If Mr. Trump can legally ban an entire region of the world, he would render Congress’s vision of unbiased legal immigration a dead letter. An appeals court stopped President Barack Obama’s executive actions to spare millions of undocumented immigrants from deportations for the similar reason that he was circumventing Congress. Some discretion? Sure. Discretion to rewrite the law? Not in America’s constitutional system.

</tbody>


David J. Bier is an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/o...s-illegal.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigration-ban-is-illegal.html)


I really wish there was a TEA Party or something that really cared about the constitution, the law and separation of powers.

Rev,
I take your point, and I admit I haven't researched this much, but I should point out what looks like a few caveats that occur to me:

1. Ban is temporary, and intended as part of the vetting process - This ban is created to be for 90 days, even though they are stating it could be permanent. My understanding is that it is to stop the flow of unvetted immigrants from these "high-risk" countries, until they can create their "extreme vetting" process. Correct me if I'm wrong about this.

2. The countries involved are failed stated or terrorism sponsors - Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, and Yemen are all failed states or are very war-torn. What's the problem with them? That there are no good records in these states to differentiate a decent human being from a terrorist. So it really is in the interest of national security that special vetting processes apply to these countries. The other country, Iran, is even worse - a state sponsor of terrorism. Iran would conceivably create false documentation to slip terrorists into our country.

3. The alternative - Letting in unvetted immigrants from these countries is a very real risk. A high percentage of them seem to hate Western values and would be willing to commit acts of terrorism. Just look at the attacks in Paris and Belgium. Letting them in without a strong vetting process would put us in the same situation as Germany. Would you want that? I would not.

You are right that we need to be allow immigrants, but we can do it in a controlled manner. It could make the difference between life and death for a lot of people.

[Gunny]

Rev,
I take your point, and I admit I haven't researched this much, but I should point out what looks like a few caveats that occur to me:

1. Ban is temporary, and intended as part of the vetting process - This ban is created to be for 90 days, even though they are stating it could be permanent. My understanding is that it is to stop the flow of unvetted immigrants from these "high-risk" countries, until they can create their "extreme vetting" process. Correct me if I'm wrong about this.

2. The countries involved are failed stated or terrorism sponsors - Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, and Yemen are all failed states or are very war-torn. What's the problem with them? That there are no good records in these states to differentiate a decent human being from a terrorist. So it really is in the interest of national security that special vetting processes apply to these countries. The other country, Iran, is even worse - a state sponsor of terrorism. Iran would conceivably create false documentation to slip terrorists into our country.

3. The alternative - Letting in unvetted immigrants from these countries is a very real risk. A high percentage of them seem to hate Western values and would be willing to commit acts of terrorism. Just look at the attacks in Paris and Belgium. Letting them in without a strong vetting process would put us in the same situation as Germany. Would you want that? I would not.

You are right that we need to be allow immigrants, but we can do it in a controlled manner. It could make the difference between life and death for a lot of people.

ANY country -- not just Iran -- and Yemen comes to mind real quick, where terrorists have taken control of government can create false documents.

[NightTrain]

A ban of refugees, signed on Holocaust Memorial Day, outstanding. :salute:

Fortunately, we have you to extend invitations to settle in your town, Noir!

There's undoubtedly a LOT pining for Ireland... Somalia and Syria aren't as nice as a campsite in your back yard.

Be sure to provide lots of korans and mosques in your town, and don't forget they have every right to institute Sharia - you do want to be sensitive to their culture, don't you?


As soon as you create that petition to allow refugees into your hometown, I'll help out by signing it as a good world citizen. :thumb:

[pete311]

"The 19 terrorists in the Sept. 11 attacks were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates, Myre points out. They are among the Muslim-majority countries not affected by Trump's immigration freeze, but where Trump does business."

[Gunny]

Fortunately, we have you to extend invitations to settle in your town, Noir!

There's undoubtedly a LOT pining for Ireland... Somalia and Syria aren't as nice as a campsite in your back yard.

Be sure to provide lots of korans and mosques in your town, and don't forget they have every right to institute Sharia - you do want to be sensitive to their culture, don't you?


As soon as you create that petition to allow refugees into your hometown, I'll help out by signing it as a good world citizen. :thumb:

I do not believe a vetting process is unconstitutional. We have always had one.

[NightTrain]

"The 19 terrorists in the Sept. 11 attacks were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates, Myre points out. They are among the Muslim-majority countries not affected by Trump's immigration freeze, but where Trump does business."

You miss the obvious point that actual vetting is required now, and the countries named have fallen short of their duties to assist in properly vetting the refugees.

But please, don't let the facts get in the way of your hysteria.

[Noir]

Fortunately, we have you to extend invitations to settle in your town, Noir!

There's undoubtedly a LOT pining for Ireland... Somalia and Syria aren't as nice as a campsite in your back yard.

Be sure to provide lots of korans and mosques in your town, and don't forget they have every right to institute Sharia - you do want to be sensitive to their culture, don't you?


As soon as you create that petition to allow refugees into your hometown, I'll help out by signing it as a good world citizen. :thumb:

I don't live in Ireland.
If the refugees want to get away from terrorists, this is a poor destination of choice.

[pete311]

You miss the obvious point that actual vetting is required now, and the countries named have fallen short of their duties to assist in properly vetting the refugees.

Source?

This is a ban, not increase in vetting.

[NightTrain]

I don't live in Ireland.
If the refugees want to get away from terrorists, this is a poor destination of choice.

Scotland, then?

You sure run to the obtuse a lot these days, Noir.

I'm sure that they'll be extremely happy with your back yard as opposed to Somalia and Syria. Have you asked them if they're interested in taking you up on your generous offer to host them?

It's your duty to show up the USA as to what a real sympathetic person you are since you enjoy criticizing us for refusing them. You'll be made an international star for your inclusiveness, tolerance and noble diversity-minded intellect. Petey can brag in the next rainbow march that he *personally* has talked to you and will receive crisp high-fives all around.

I expect you'll even make the cover of Moonbat Weekly! And wont your neighbors be proud of your efforts? Might even squeeze a knighthood out of the deal.

[NightTrain]

Source?

This is a ban, not increase in vetting.

Read the actual text of the speech instead of being spoonfed Soro's spin.

Or, you can simply watch a video of Trump's speech in it's entirety instead of being spoodfed a Soros edited clip. Google has millions of hits on the subject.

Then, Petey, you can formulate your OWN opinion instead of taking anyone's word for it. And you'll get smarter. Win/Win.

[pete311]

Read the actual text of the speech instead of being spoonfed Soro's spin.

Or, you can simply watch a video of Trump's speech in it's entirety instead of being spoodfed a Soros edited clip. Google has millions of hits on the subject.

Then, Petey, you can formulate your OWN opinion instead of taking anyone's word for it. And you'll get smarter. Win/Win.

Which speech? Trump has a speech today? Don't tell me it was some speech from a month+ ago.

[NightTrain]

Which speech? Trump has a speech today? Don't tell me it was some speech from a month+ ago.

Let me know what your search turns up on the subject.

We're all counting on you.

[pete311]

Let me know what your search turns up on the subject.

We're all counting on you.
you make a claim, you back it up with a source otherwise, fuck off

[NightTrain]

you make a claim, you back it up with a source otherwise, fuck off

Me fuck off? No, Petey.

1) A post was made discussing a recent event that Trump engaged in affecting national policy.

2) You made stupid allegations saying Trump did them for other reasons than he stated.

3) I pointed out the reasons why you're wrong, and encouraged you to educate yourself.

4) You then claimed you have no idea what event we're talking about.

5) Game over, Moonbat.

[pete311]

Me fuck off? No, Petey.

1) A post was made discussing a recent event that Trump engaged in affecting national policy.

2) You made stupid allegations saying Trump did them for other reasons than he stated.

3) I pointed out the reasons why you're wrong, and encouraged you to educate yourself.

4) You then claimed you have no idea what event we're talking about.

5) Game over, Moonbat.

I've read a dozen reports (even on Brietbart and Foxnews) and none mention a speech

[NightTrain]

I've read a dozen reports (even on Brietbart and Foxnews) and none mention a speech

Pro-Tip : When in doubt, go directly to the document in question.

Knowledge : Apply directly to forehead.
Knowledge : Apply directly to forehead.
Knowledge : Apply directly to forehead.

[gabosaurus]

I hope you all remember the last world leader who wanted to ban entire nationalities and ideologies. Trump is beginning to resemble him more every day. As are his most fervent supporters.

http://ugblizz.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Adolf-Hitler-446x500.jpg

[Abbey Marie]

Fortunately, we have you to extend invitations to settle in your town, Noir!

There's undoubtedly a LOT pining for Ireland... Somalia and Syria aren't as nice as a campsite in your back yard.

Be sure to provide lots of korans and mosques in your town, and don't forget they have every right to institute Sharia - you do want to be sensitive to their culture, don't you?


As soon as you create that petition to allow refugees into your hometown, I'll help out by signing it as a good world citizen. :thumb:

And when they take over an area, guess what they do? Ban women from the Pubs. What fun that will be for the young Irish men!

[Abbey Marie]

These countries were chosen for extra vetting due to their ties to terrorist activity. Not because "we don't like them".

Hey, but why deal in reality, when emotional hand-wringing and hyperbole and attacks on Republicans are so much more fun!

[gabosaurus]

And when they take over an area, guess what they do? Ban women from the Pubs. What fun that will be for the young Irish men!

Immigrants who settle in foreign countries have to abide by that country's laws.

[Abbey Marie]

Immigrants who settle in foreign countries have to abide by that country's laws.

You'd think so, but I distinctly remember learning that French police stayed out of the Muslim neighborhoods. And right here at home, police in Sanctuary cities are told they cannot fully enforce our Immigration laws.

[jimnyc]

Note that the discrimination ban applies only to immigrants. Legally speaking, immigrants are those who are given permanent United States residency. By contrast, temporary visitors like guest workers, students and tourists, as well as refugees, could still be barred.


From the posted article....

Just another fake bunch of crap.

Yup. This is what happens when folks want and hope they find problems. Then he quickly becomes a nazi, hitler, breaking massive laws...

And for me - just more #Winning!!!

[Kathianne]

Yup. This is what happens when folks want and hope they find problems. Then he quickly becomes a nazi, hitler, breaking massive laws...

And for me - just more #Winning!!!

I'm guessing we're going to see a change for those with green cards. They are 'permanent residents' and seems to me that they'd have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. We'll see.

What I haven't seen brought up is that Obama banned one country for 6 months, for terrorism:

http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/18/the-obama-administration-stopped-processing-iraq-refugee-requests-for-6-months-in-2011/

OR that Obama administration was the one that ID'd the 7 countries named:

https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-administration-made-the-muslim-ban-possible-and-the-media-wont-tell-you/

[aboutime]

Immigrants who settle in foreign countries have to abide by that country's laws.


gabby. If THAT ^ is true. Please explain why Illegals crossing our Southern border DON'T HAVE TO?

By coming here...unless legally..THEY ARE BREAKING FEDERAL LAWS.

Or, do you support ONLY OBEYING THE LAWS YOU LIKE, and BREAKING ALL THE OTHERS?

[Drummond]

Well, revelarts, it should be obvious to anyone...besides Donnie's fans...that he doesn't give a shit about law or precedent. But let's look at the countries that made Donnie's list, and those that didn't.
Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen are on Donnie's list. According to statistics compiled by the conservative think tank, the Cato Institute between 1975 and 2015, not a single American was killed by any citizen from any of these countries. And, oddly enough, Donnie doesn't have ANY business interests in these countries.
Now, if we look at that very same data set, we see that four countries accounted for the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans. Those nations are Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Turkey, yet they appear nowhere on Donnie's list. And the striking coincidence here is that Donnie has business interests in ALL four of these countries. SO, you see, Donnie's list has nothing to do with protecting America, and everything to do with protecting his business interests. A clear violation of his constitutional duties, not that he gives a damn about those.

What a fascinating post ...:rolleyes:

Apart from the obvious objections which can be raised about the countries you name (Iran being a leading terrorist sponsor, for example) ... I was struck by one of your inclusions in particular ...

... IRAQ ...

Here's your wording again ... an excerpt from it ...


Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen are on Donnie's list. According to statistics compiled by the conservative think tank, the Cato Institute between 1975 and 2015, not a single American was killed by any citizen from any of these countries.

... OK.

Now, maybe you've been living in a parallel universe, and you're reporting on the reality there. In THIS reality, however, US troops were sent to Iraq (as were British ones, too, for that matter).

Are you seriously going to claim that no US soldier, no US military personnel at all, has been killed by any Iraqi, ahem, 'person' at any time those troops were there ??? Because if you are, that is one of the most outrageous revisions of history I've ever heard of.

Granted, some of the terrorists operating in Iraq came from outside that country. But not all of them !!

Perhaps in your world, US troops found Iraq to be a nice, peaceful little Middle Eastern backwater ? No attacks. No roadside bombs. No snipers ... etc ....

I know you're a Leftie. I know only too well that Lefties will happily substitute propaganda for reality, then demand that everybody buys into their delusions. But, really ... such propagandising needs to at least be credible ... not completely and outrageously a lie !!

And an insulting one at that. I believe you've insulted the memories of all those who've been killed or maimed when doing a tour of duty in Iraq. You should be ashamed of yourself, in my view.

[NightTrain]

Beyond that, I remember a Somali immigrant mowing down a lot of Americans with a vehicle, stabbing a bunch with a knife, and being shot by a cop.


...that doesn't count?

[aboutime]

I hope you all remember the last world leader who wanted to ban entire nationalities and ideologies. Trump is beginning to resemble him more every day. As are his most fervent supporters.

http://ugblizz.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Adolf-Hitler-446x500.jpg


Thanks, from all of us here at DP gabby. Thanks for showing us.....YOU REALLY ARE A SICK, HATE-FILLED, IDIOT. Thanks...finally.

[Kathianne]

I'm guessing we're going to see a change for those with green cards. They are 'permanent residents' and seems to me that they'd have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. We'll see.

What I haven't seen brought up is that Obama banned one country for 6 months, for terrorism:

http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/18/the-obama-administration-stopped-processing-iraq-refugee-requests-for-6-months-in-2011/

OR that Obama administration was the one that ID'd the 7 countries named:

https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-administration-made-the-muslim-ban-possible-and-the-media-wont-tell-you/

A judge has ordered a stay on enforcement. It seems this order may have been badly written, purposefully or not?

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/01/28/dhs-spox-trump-muslim-ban-includes-green-card-holders/

[Balu]

I'm guessing we're going to see a change for those with green cards. They are 'permanent residents' and seems to me that they'd have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. We'll see. ...
No problems. Now the USA are in a state of war against terrorism and it is reasonable to use the same approach as to Japs during Word War II - to intern all those who come from areas where there is terrorism, whether legally or not they came in the United States and are the US citizens or not. Apologizes mat be later, when the war against terrorism is over.

[Black Diamond]

<tbody>
President Trump signed an executive order on Friday that purports to bar for at least 90 days almost all permanent immigration from seven majority-Muslim countries, including Syria and Iraq, and asserts the power to extend the ban indefinitely.

But the order is illegal. More than 50 years ago, Congress outlawed such discrimination against immigrants based on national origin.

That decision came after a long and shameful history in this country of barring immigrants based on where they came from. Starting in the late 19th century, laws excluded all Chinese, almost all Japanese, then all Asians in the so-called Asiatic Barred Zone. Finally, in 1924, Congress created a comprehensive “national-origins system,” skewing immigration quotas to benefit Western Europeans and to exclude most Eastern Europeans, almost all Asians, and Africans.

Mr. Trump appears to want to reinstate a new type of Asiatic Barred Zone by executive order, but there is just one problem: The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 banned all discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin, replacing the old prejudicial system and giving each country an equal shot at the quotas. In signing the new law, President Lyndon B. Johnson said that “the harsh injustice” of the national-origins quota system had been “abolished.”
Nonetheless, Mr. Trump asserts that he still has the power to discriminate, pointing to a 1952 law that allows the president the ability to “suspend the entry” of “any class of aliens” that he finds are detrimental to the interest of the United States.
But the president ignores the fact that Congress then restricted this power in 1965, stating plainly that no person could be “discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.” The only exceptions are those provided for by Congress (such as the preference for Cuban asylum seekers).

When Congress passed the 1965 law, it wished to protect not just immigrants, but also American citizens, who should have the right to sponsor their family members or to marry a foreign-born spouse without being subject to pointless discrimination.

Mr. Trump may want to revive discrimination based on national origin by asserting a distinction between “the issuance of a visa” and the “entry” of the immigrant. But this is nonsense. Immigrants cannot legally be issued a visa if they are barred from entry. Thus, all orders under the 1952 law apply equally to entry and visa issuance, as his executive order acknowledges.

Note that the discrimination ban applies only to immigrants. Legally speaking, immigrants are those who are given permanent United States residency. By contrast, temporary visitors like guest workers, students and tourists, as well as refugees, could still be barred. The 1965 law does not ban discrimination based on religion — which was Mr. Trump’s original proposal.

While presidents have used their power dozens of times to keep out certain groups of foreigners under the 1952 law, no president has ever barred an entire nationality of immigrants without exception. In the most commonly cited case, President Jimmy Carter barred certain Iranians during the 1980 hostage crisis, but the targets were mainly students, tourists and temporary visitors. Even then, the policy had many humanitarian exceptions. Immigrants continued to be admitted in 1980.

While courts rarely interfere in immigration matters, they have affirmed the discrimination ban. In the 1990s, for example, the government created a policy that required Vietnamese who had fled to Hong Kong to return to Vietnam if they wanted to apply for United States immigrant visas, while it allowed applicants from other countries to apply for visas wherever they wanted. A federal appeals court blocked the policy.

The government in that case did not even bother arguing that the 1952 law permitted discrimination. The court rejected its defense that a “rational link” with a temporary foreign policy measure could justify ignoring the law — an argument the Trump administration is sure to make. The court wrote, “We cannot rewrite a statutory provision which by its own terms provides no exceptions or qualifications.”

To resolve this case, Congress amended the law in 1996 to state that “procedures” and “locations” for processing immigration applications cannot count as discrimination. While there is plenty of room for executive mischief there, the amendment made clear that Congress still wanted the discrimination ban to hold some force. A blanket immigration prohibition on a nationality by the president would still be illegal.

Even if courts do find wiggle room here, discretion can be taken too far. If Mr. Trump can legally ban an entire region of the world, he would render Congress’s vision of unbiased legal immigration a dead letter. An appeals court stopped President Barack Obama’s executive actions to spare millions of undocumented immigrants from deportations for the similar reason that he was circumventing Congress. Some discretion? Sure. Discretion to rewrite the law? Not in America’s constitutional system.

</tbody>


David J. Bier is an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/o...s-illegal.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigration-ban-is-illegal.html)


I really wish there was a TEA Party or something that really cared about the constitution, the law and separation of powers.
New York Times or national review?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/bc.marfeel.com/amp/www.nationalreview.com/article/444371/donald-trump-executive-order-ban-entry-seven-muslim-majority-countries-legal

[Gunny]

Source?

This is a ban, not increase in vetting.

What is the 1st step in life saving? STOP THE BLEEDING. NOTHING else you can do is going to work until you STOP THE BLEEDING.

I have zero problem with this. We don't need refugees anyway. From ANY country. A few things just glaringly boggle the mind ...

One, why you lefties whine, cry and want handouts and to help everyone in the universe EXCEPT Americans. You'll give to the ASPCA but will pretend you don't see the homeless guy on the corner.

You'll open our borders up to people who have admitted they are coming here to kill us.

Here's a novel idea (not) ... Let's keep the war over there? I realize that's a hard concept for you to grasp, but it's a tried and true method. "Fight the enemy where HE lives". -- Tsun tsu - The Art Or War. You people that let your politics think for you instead of common sense slay me. And in real time you are useless and pointless.

[revelarts]

New York Times or national review?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/bc.marfeel.com/amp/www.nationalreview.com/article/444371/donald-trump-executive-order-ban-entry-seven-muslim-majority-countries-legal

CATO Institute
but if it's true, does the source really matter to honest people?

[Gunny]

CATO Institute
but if it's true, does the source really matter to honest people?

Honest people. Sure. I got more sea time in the ME than anyone on this board except maybe AT. Honesty goes to admitting who your enemy is and fighting him. It does NOT include some desk jockey's interpretation of what they read on some dumbass website. You either stop your enemy, or he wins. Muslims have been invading the West since the 7th century and have not stopped. They are a threat to our way of life. If we have to take common sense precautions to stop them, good.

All these rights you think you have? They don't exist under Islam. There is nothing inherent about rights. You fight for them or they are taken away. And he who fights dirtiest and doesn't follow your Judeo-Christian mindset wins. And when you are against a relentless opponent, you have to out-think and out-fight him or you lose.

[NightTrain]

Something I wasn't aware of is that the NYT is owned by Carlos Slim, the Mexican billionaire.

Suddenly a lot of things they've published become more clear to me in the political realm.

[Gunny]

Something I wasn't aware of is that the NYT is owned by Carlos Slim, the Mexican billionaire.

Suddenly a lot of things they've published become more clear to me in the political realm.

Dude, you need to get out of your igloo more often. The NY Times, San Fran Chronicle, Miami Herald, Washington Post, et al were all owned by Hearst. They aren't telling the truth. They are telling you what they want you to hear. One of the first rules in journalism -- lead the reader to the conclusion you want them to come to.

[jimnyc]

Note that the discrimination ban applies only to immigrants. Legally speaking, immigrants are those who are given permanent United States residency. By contrast, temporary visitors like guest workers, students and tourists, as well as refugees, could still be barred.


From the posted article....

Just another fake bunch of crap.

Many will ignore your update here, CSM, and still run with things anyway.

The more banned from war torn countries the better. Not unless they can be vetted 1000% and then some. And if they can do that, then no issues.

I looked and looked, and no complaints when Obama banned Iraq refugees for 6 months. I guess it was good for the country then? :rolleyes:

A federal judge has overruled it for now anyway, which hopefully it will be rewritten for the better and halt those that can potentially bring danger to our shores. If you don't like it, then I guess that means your side lost the election. :)

[Gunny]

Many will ignore your update here, CSM, and still run with things anyway.

The more banned from war torn countries the better. Not unless they can be vetted 1000% and then some. And if they can do that, then no issues.

I looked and looked, and no complaints when Obama banned Iraq refugees for 6 months. I guess it was good for the country then? :rolleyes:

A federal judge has overruled it for now anyway, which hopefully it will be rewritten for the better and halt those that can potentially bring danger to our shores. If you don't like it, then I guess that means your side lost the election. :)

Must be from a different world. NOBODY ignores the Sergeant Major.

[pete311]

I watched a Vice news report documenting the immigration process of a Syrian family. It took 4 years and included 6 interviews. What more do you want?

Sad how we have on average 45 murders a day in the US and yet we focus on this bullshit. 45 murders a day! From how many immigrants?

[jimnyc]

I watched a Vice news report documenting the immigration process of a Syrian family. It took 4 years and included 6 interviews. What more do you want?

Sad how we have on average 45 murders a day in the US and yet we focus on this bullshit. 45 murders a day! From how many immigrants?

Then folks like that won't have an issue once things are under control. So long as they can be appropriately vetted, and sounds like they will, then they will enter the country. How hard is that to understand? If they cannot, then they stay put. It should NOT take that long if the proper channels are in place and a person CAN be vetted

Speaking of those 45 murders per day - do they now suddenly bother you? While Obama was in office, care to share at least 5 links where you posted your concerns about those daily murders? I know I did, and very often. I don't recall those threads being started by you. But just 5 links will do buddy. :)

[pete311]

Then folks like that won't have an issue once things are under control. So long as they can be appropriately vetted, and sounds like they will, then they will enter the country. How hard is that to understand? If they cannot, then they stay put. It should NOT take that long if the proper channels are in place and a person CAN be vetted

Speaking of those 45 murders per day - do they now suddenly bother you? While Obama was in office, care to share at least 5 links where you posted your concerns about those daily murders? I know I did, and very often. I don't recall those threads being started by you. But just 5 links will do buddy. :)

What does appropriately vetted mean? How were we not already doing that? How will we know when they are? What are the metrics here?

If you want me to spam this forum with a billion links to all the things I care about just so you can't call me out on something in 5 years, then so be it. Get ready.

[jimnyc]

What does appropriately vetted mean? How were we not already doing that? How will we know when they are? What are the metrics here?

If you want me to spam this forum with a billion links to all the things I care about just so you can't call me out on something in 5 years, then so be it. Get ready.

When they can be 100% properly identified. If that can't happen, then they don't come. It's simples.

"spam"? Do so and take a vacation. Your choice. I don't think it's a good idea myself. FACT is, you never once complained about all of the non-stop murders in Chicago while Obama is in office - and now that Trump is in office for ONE WEEK, you are whining about daily murders. Pete, it's laughable.

[NightTrain]

Many will ignore your update here, CSM, and still run with things anyway.

The more banned from war torn countries the better. Not unless they can be vetted 1000% and then some. And if they can do that, then no issues.

I looked and looked, and no complaints when Obama banned Iraq refugees for 6 months. I guess it was good for the country then? :rolleyes:

That DOES seem weird with the rabid opposition we're seeing now. Huh.


A federal judge has overruled it for now anyway, which hopefully it will be rewritten for the better and halt those that can potentially bring danger to our shores. If you don't like it, then I guess that means your side lost the election. :)

No, that's just addressing those green card holders / migrants that are in transit right now - the order is still in full effect, and when those who were caught in the air or at airports are sorted out, things will proceed as written from what I understand.

[NightTrain]

What does appropriately vetted mean? How were we not already doing that? How will we know when they are? What are the metrics here?

Vetted enough to satisfy professionals who do it for a living, and not a inept community organizer's political agenda to create reliable democrat welfare-rangers.


If you want me to spam this forum with a billion links to all the things I care about just so you can't call me out on something in 5 years, then so be it. Get ready.

We are well aware of Soro's views that you mindlessly parrot.

At the risk of being ironic, I invite you to think for yourself. (!)

[jimnyc]

That DOES seem weird with the rabid opposition we're seeing now. Huh.



No, that's just addressing those green card holders / migrants that are in transit right now - the order is still in full effect, and when those who were caught in the air or at airports are sorted out, things will proceed as written from what I understand.

It still goes back to what I said all along, what I said about this in the beginning, and also still in full effect - some WANT him to fail, are looking for things to bitch about, and will quickly jump all over things, whether those things are "vetted" or not. But congress outlawed this over 50 years ago? LOL

And yeah, first it was just getting 2 guys through the airport, then a federal judge ordered a stay revolving around green card holders. For the most part things will proceed as planned. And hell, I'm not looking to ban the world, nor "ban muslims" as some will run with. But rather folks that are coming from terrorist ridden hellholes or war torn countries, places where it's nearly impossible to properly vet someone incoming to our country, and therefore we are more or less flipping a coin. Do it the right way, 100%, guaranteed vetting, or don't do it at all.

[NightTrain]

It still goes back to what I said all along, what I said about this in the beginning, and also still in full effect - some WANT him to fail, are looking for things to bitch about, and will quickly jump all over things, whether those things are "vetted" or not. But congress outlawed this over 50 years ago? LOL

And yeah, first it was just getting 2 guys through the airport, then a federal judge ordered a stay revolving around green card holders. For the most part things will proceed as planned. And hell, I'm not looking to ban the world, nor "ban muslims" as some will run with. But rather folks that are coming from terrorist ridden hellholes or war torn countries, places where it's nearly impossible to properly vet someone incoming to our country, and therefore we are more or less flipping a coin. Do it the right way, 100%, guaranteed vetting, or don't do it at all.

Yep.

I have no problem with legal immigration, as I've said before, so long as they're properly investigated to the satisfaction of our professionals doing the vetting.

[bullypulpit]

Beyond that, I remember a Somali immigrant mowing down a lot of Americans with a vehicle, stabbing a bunch with a knife, and being shot by a cop.


...that doesn't count?

Well, no one, except one mentally ill Somali man, died. So, not so much.

[pete311]

Do it the right way, 100%, guaranteed vetting, or don't do it at all.

Then you support a full and permanent ban because 100% does not exist. There are families torn up from this. One of my best friends works at Google and he said one of his high level co-workers can't travel back to see her family.

You guys talk about how the old vetting was not good enough? Where is the evidence? Where are the hordes of militant islamists blowing up our cities? Where have they been the last 8 years? What is broken that needs to be fixed?

[jimnyc]

Then you support a full and permanent ban because 100% does not exist. There are families torn up from this. One of my best friends works at Google and he said one of his high level co-workers can't travel back to see her family.

You guys talk about how the old vetting was not good enough? Where is the evidence? Where are the hordes of militant islamists blowing up our cities? Where have they been the last 8 years? What is broken that needs to be fixed?

If someone can be properly vetted, and they CAN in many instances - let them in. If they cannot at this point, for various reasons, then they cannot be let in until such time that they can in fact be properly vetted. It's not difficult. And once the wars can, and if be brought down, and vetting easier to do and obtain records and what not, then such things can be relaxed a little. But taking a chance, and even one attack would be too many. I believe we should work at all avenues in order to prevent terrorism or any future attacks that they have stated they want to do.

[NightTrain]

Well, no one, except one mentally ill Somali man, died. So, not so much.

Oh.

Then how about the Somali that knifed a bunch of people in a Minnesota mall last September?

... that doesn't count?

[pete311]

If someone can be properly vetted, and they CAN in many instances - let them in. If they cannot at this point, for various reasons, then they cannot be let in until such time that they can in fact be properly vetted. It's not difficult. And once the wars can, and if be brought down, and vetting easier to do and obtain records and what not, then such things can be relaxed a little. But taking a chance, and even one attack would be too many. I believe we should work at all avenues in order to prevent terrorism or any future attacks that they have stated they want to do.

Jim you still have not showed me how they haven't been properly vetted. The immigration dept took 4 years to research the syrian family. What steps did they not reasonably take. There is no 100%, you always take some chance. Why are you not concerned over Russian, Irish or Italian immigrants tied to local mafias. In my city it's well known they still do weekly shake downs. It's pretty destructive. Don't care about that do you?

[jimnyc]

Oh.

Then how about the Somali that knifed a bunch of people in a Minnesota mall last September?

... that doesn't count?

Of course not, let's not be silly about all of this now!! :laugh:

[jimnyc]

Jim you still have not showed me how they haven't been properly vetted. The immigration dept took 4 years to research the syrian family. What steps did they not reasonably take. There is no 100%, you always take some chance. Why are you not concerned over Russian, Irish or Italian immigrants tied to local mafias. In my city it's well known they still do weekly shake downs. It's pretty destructive. Don't care about that do you?

I was speaking in general, not of one family that I don't know. I'm sure something went wrong there if it took 4 years, or something took place that we are unaware of. But I agree there is no reason it should take that long, to either be let in, or at least be given a denial. But again, I'm speaking overall. And yes, I DO care about overall. Personally, I think the vetting system should apply to ALL incoming immigrants. We just know where the majority of the 'border' abuse comes from.

[pete311]

Oh.

Then how about the Somali that knifed a bunch of people in a Minnesota mall last September?

... that doesn't count?

One needs to do cost-benefit analysis and not get emotional over one or two incidents. We are descendants of immigrants and lots of bad shit has happened in the past. We didn't close the doors back then. Lots of skilled people come from those countries that benefit the US.

[jimnyc]

I think Priebus puts the first day in perspective, and I would imagine things should get smoother as time goes on...

-----

Priebus: We Won't Apologize For Keeping America Safe

President Trump's WH chief of staff Reince Priebus joins NBC's Chuck Todd on 'Meet The Press' to defend Trump's executive order restricting people coming into the U.S. from seven middle eastern countries.

"The fact of the matter is that 325,000 people from foreign countries came into the United States yesterday, and 109 people were detained for further questioning. Most of those people were moved out. We’ve got a couple dozen more that remain," Priebus told Todd. "I would suspect that as long as they are not awful people, they will be moved through today... If they’re folks that shouldn’t be in this country, they’re going to be detained. So we apologize for nothing here."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/01/29/priebus_we_wont_apologize_for_keeping_america_safe .html

[pete311]

I was speaking in general, not of one family that I don't know. I'm sure something went wrong there if it took 4 years, or something took place that we are unaware of. But I agree there is no reason it should take that long, to either be let in, or at least be given a denial. But again, I'm speaking overall. And yes, I DO care about overall. Personally, I think the vetting system should apply to ALL incoming immigrants. We just know where the majority of the 'border' abuse comes from.

You still have not substantiated your belief that the current or recent past vetting process is badly flawed. How do you come to believe that?

[NightTrain]

One needs to do cost-benefit analysis and not get emotional over one or two incidents. We are descendants of immigrants and lots of bad shit has happened in the past. We didn't close the doors back then. Lots of skilled people come from those countries that benefit the US.

Oh.

How about the incident in Ohio when a muslim attacked Americans with a machete before being gunned down by cops in 2016?

... that doesn't count?

[NightTrain]

What about the Boston Marathon when those immigrant muslims blew up 280 Americans?

That doesn't count either?

[jimnyc]

You still have not substantiated your belief that the current or recent past vetting process is badly flawed. How do you come to believe that?

If these countries can no longer produce appropriate paperwork, or things are missing as a result of being bombed, then these folks should be held up. Syria will be hit the hardest as far as not allowing refugees in, for example. If a shot ton of their buildings have been destroyed, and folks can no longer be vetted, then they're out of luck. This will apply to other countries as well.

I am not someone working with either administration. If all was fine prior, then there should be no issues going forward either. So long as they can 100% vet anyone and everyone coming in, and I couldn't care less if this is from Mexico, Syria or Russia. Now it will all be in writing, and hopefully this process will be followed properly, as will all the laws when an illegal is found hopping the border, or in our jails. Follow the laws from this new 'extreme' vetting process, to our border walls, to deportations of criminals, communication between agencies about illegals, penalizing companies that take advantage of illegals.. The whole ten yards.

[NightTrain]

Then we have another muslim immigrant who killed 5 in his peaceful rampage in Chattanooga before being gunned down in 2015.

I guess that probably doesn't count either, does it?

[jimnyc]

These dummies are going to demand "what is wrong with the process now" until someone blows something up or shoots a place up. http://i.imgur.com/gvYKfpz.jpg

[NightTrain]

I'm curious as to the Orlando nightclub incident... admittedly, those were the sons of muslim immigrants, but it appears to me that their parental duties in assimilating were less than stellar, to say the least.

Should those count?

[pete311]

I'm curious as to the Orlando nightclub incident... admittedly, those were the sons of muslim immigrants, but it appears to me that their parental duties in assimilating were less than stellar, to say the least.

Should those count?
Omar Mateen's dad is a piece of shit and should probably not have been admitted to the US for his taliban support. But... he immigrated in the early 80s. During the Reagan admin.

[NightTrain]

Omar Mateen's dad is a piece of shit and should probably not have been admitted to the US for his taliban support. But... he immigrated in the early 80s. During the Reagan admin.

I can probably fill up several pages worth of muslim atrocities.

I enjoy seeing you and Bully Boy dance to excuse attacks on American citizens because we're letting in people without being properly vetted.

How many dead Americans are okay with you two geniuses?

Don't you think the reasonable thing to do is to pause inbound immigration while we review obvious shortcomings in our immigration policy from terrorist-ridden hellholes?

[pete311]

I can probably fill up several pages worth of muslim atrocities.

I enjoy seeing you and Bully Boy dance to excuse attacks on American citizens because we're letting in people without being properly vetted.

How many dead Americans are okay with you two geniuses?

Don't you think the reasonable thing to do is to pause inbound immigration while we review obvious shortcomings in our immigration policy from terrorist-ridden hellholes?

How many americans died because of the unnecessary iraq war? How many innocent Iraqis died at our hand? Now you make a big stink of a handful of moderate incidents from first gen immigrants.

I think it's a great idea to review and fix shortcoming. A ban is not reasonable unless there are severe issues which I haven't seen any evidence from. There are several big time countries that are not listed. How can Saudi Arabia not be on the list. Most of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudi for fucks sake. Saudi ideology, sufism, is adopted by terrorists. Oh Trump has a god damn golf course there. hmmmmm.

[Russ]

I'm guessing we're going to see a change for those with green cards. They are 'permanent residents' and seems to me that they'd have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. We'll see.

What I haven't seen brought up is that Obama banned one country for 6 months, for terrorism:

http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/18/the-obama-administration-stopped-processing-iraq-refugee-requests-for-6-months-in-2011/

OR that Obama administration was the one that ID'd the 7 countries named:

https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-administration-made-the-muslim-ban-possible-and-the-media-wont-tell-you/


Great point, Kathianne. Trump executive action doesn't actually name the 7 countries it applies to. It just refers to an Obama executive action that specifies these 7 countries as being particularly dangerous to allow immigration from, and which created extra vetting procedures. And Trump's executive action doesn't mention anything about Muslims - it suspends visas for 90 days for anyone from those countries, not just Muslims.

So clearly, CNN-NYT-WashPost are reporting Trump's executive action with very slanted reporting, and being extremely misleading with the wording of their stories. And they are totally failing to mention that Obama banned visas from Iraq for 6 months.

[jimnyc]

Great point, Kathianne. Trump executive action doesn't actually name the 7 countries it applies to. It just refers to an Obama executive action that specifies these 7 countries as being particularly dangerous to allow immigration from, and which create extra vetting procedures. And Trumps executive action doesn't mention anything about Muslims - it suspends visas for 90 days for anyone from those countries, not just Muslims.

So clearly, CNN-NYT-WashPost are reporting Trump's executive action with very slanted reporting, and being extremely misleading with the wording of their stories. And they are totally failing to mention that Obama banned visas from Iraq for 6 months.

In other words, the media is once again twisting the news in order to vilify Trump? And then some read it and run with it? And they ignore the fact that the former president did similar in 2011? And none of them complained back then? :)

[NightTrain]

How many americans died because of the unnecessary iraq war? How many innocent Iraqis died at our hand? Now you make a big stink of a handful of moderate incidents from first gen immigrants.

While I appreciate your desperate attempts to obfuscate, that's decidedly off topic.

Do try to stay focused, mmkay?


I think it's a great idea to review and fix shortcoming. A ban is not reasonable unless there are severe issues which I haven't seen any evidence from. There are several big time countries that are not listed. How can Saudi Arabia not be on the list. Most of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudi for fucks sake. Saudi ideology, sufism, is adopted by terrorists. Oh Trump has a god damn golf course there. hmmmmm.

Saudi citizens have a greatly enhanced vetting procedure compared to 9-10-01. Thus, we haven't had even one Saudi involved in terroristy activities in America since then.

See how effective a serious review can be? Saudi Arabia has a functioning government who actively participates with our authorities - they're greatly motivated to avoid severe embarrassment again by their citizens killing the lone Superpower's citizens and risking war, let alone the military hardware cut off as they eye Iran's hostile posture toward them. Yes, they have every reason to be 100% accurate in their assessment of Saudis wishing to travel to America.

On the other hand, Petey, how effective can a vetting process be with Syria, who is in the middle of a civil war? How do you go about investigating people from territory that the government doesn't even control?

[jimnyc]

DHS Vows to Enforce Donald Trump’s Executive Order

The Department of Homeland Security plans to enforce President Donald Trump’s executive order to dramatically reduce immigration from high threat countries in the Middle East.

“The Department of Homeland Security will continue to enforce all of President Trump’s Executive Orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people,” the agency made in a statement sent to reporters on Sunday. They reminded Americans that only a small percentage of travelers were affected by the new restrictions.

The agency noted that although some individuals were held for further screening, some of them were allowed entry into the United States, despite protesters at area airports describing the order as a “Muslim ban.”

“These individuals went through enhanced security screenings and are being processed for entry to the United States, consistent with our immigration laws and judicial orders,” the department said.

The agency did not signal that they were prepared to back down from the rigorous enforcement of Trump’s executive action.

“The Department of Homeland Security will comply with judicial orders; faithfully enforce our immigration laws, and implement President Trump’s Executive Orders to ensure that those entering the United States do not pose a threat to our country or the American people,” the statement concluded.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/29/dhs-vows-enforce-donald-trumps-executive-order/

[Abbey Marie]

Let's send Bully and Pete to Syria, et al to personally vet these folks. Since they will be among such a peaceful people, they should have nothing to worry about, right? Then anyone who passes their tests will live either with them, or at least on their block.

[pete311]

In other words, the media is once again twisting the news in order to vilify Trump? And then some read it and run with it? And they ignore the fact that the former president did similar in 2011? And none of them complained back then? :)

2011 was the rise of ISIS in Iraq, makes sense

[jimnyc]

2011 was the rise of ISIS in Iraq, makes sense

One president took actions on immigration on what he thought was best to protect our country. Times have changed, wars have moved, terrorism has moved. Another president is taking actions to do what he thinks is best to protect our country. I have no issue with either decision. I think both decisions were correct decisions. Our country and our safety should always come first, always come before foreigners or refugees.

[Russ]

Well, no one, except one mentally ill Somali man, died. So, not so much.

What, the severely injured people don't count? There were 11 people injured by the car and by getting hacked by a machete. How about the climate of terrorism it created? How about it being a hate crime, since the Somali guy determined that the store owner was Israeli, 30 minutes before he attacked?

Oh, and by the way, the Somali guy was never described as mentally ill. You just made that up.

He was actually just a guy that hated Israel, and didn't mind killing people. Oh yeah, and he had immigrated from Somalia.

[Black Diamond]

CATO Institute
but if it's true, does the source really matter to honest people?
Um. National review contradicts the New York Times piece.

[pete311]

One president took actions on immigration on what he thought was best to protect our country. Times have changed, wars have moved, terrorism has moved. Another president is taking actions to do what he thinks is best to protect our country. I have no issue with either decision. I think both decisions were correct decisions. Our country and our safety should always come first, always come before foreigners or refugees.

Then we should ban all immigrants forever, build a dome around the country, disconnect from the internet and hide under our beds clutching our shot guns.

[gabosaurus]

The courts will soon have their say. Trump won't like the decisions.

[NightTrain]

Then we should ban all immigrants forever, build a dome around the country, disconnect from the internet and hide under our beds clutching our shot guns.

I have a handful of immigrant friends. They oppose illegals more than I do.


And as far as shotguns... those instruments should not be handled by moonbats. It's settled science that liberals are mentally ill, and there are laws against such people handling firearms, remember?

[NightTrain]

The courts will soon have their say. Trump won't like the decisions.

They will?

What was illegal about his order?

[jimnyc]

Then we should ban all immigrants forever, build a dome around the country, disconnect from the internet and hide under our beds clutching our shot guns.

Or perhaps we don't overreact. Then we can vet folks properly. We let those in that can be 100% properly vetted. Those that can't, they don't get in.

Or we can jump off bridges and be retarded and go your route. Instead of a tiny portion that ends up not getting through, we just get upset about it and ban everyone on earth. Makes sense!! :rolleyes:

[Black Diamond]

The courts will soon have their say. Trump won't like the decisions.
Yeah. And vote trump, get Hillary, right?

[Black Diamond]

Um. National review contradicts the New York Times piece.
I guess honest people should believe the New York Times lies.

[jimnyc]

They will?

What was illegal about his order?

Wishful thinking is all. The problem is the refugees. They will be the center of this vetting process. And I've got no doubt at all that this portion remains no matter what. I can see the green card thing staying overturned, but that's about it. Fact is, this "ban" is really just a very short term thing, and the majority of this is the vetting. They're simply not going to stop more vetting.

[Abbey Marie]

They will?

What was illegal about his order?

Isn't it great that Trump gets to appoint Federal judges, too? :thumb:

[Black Diamond]

They will?

What was illegal about his order?
According to national review, nothing.

[pete311]

Or perhaps we don't overreact. Then we can vet folks properly. We let those in that can be 100% properly vetted. Those that can't, they don't get in.

Or we can jump off bridges and be retarded and go your route. Instead of a tiny portion that ends up not getting through, we just get upset about it and ban everyone on earth. Makes sense!! :rolleyes:

Jim, why do you keep saying 100%? There is no 100% for anyone.

[NightTrain]

Um. National review contradicts the New York Times piece.

New York Times owned by Mexican Billionaire - Carlos Slim.

:thinking5:

[NightTrain]

Jim, why do you keep saying 100%? There is no 100% for anyone.

Going by muslims from Saudi Arabia since 9/11, we are experiencing a 100% success rate on vetting from that country.

Seems that properly vetting works great, wouldn't you agree?

[Black Diamond]

New York Times owned by Mexican Billionaire - Carlos Slim.

:thinking5: revelarts should have read the national review piece instead of assuming those who don't believe the New York Times are dishonest.

[pete311]

Going by muslims from Saudi Arabia since 9/11, we are experiencing a 100% success rate on vetting from that country.

Seems that properly vetting works great, wouldn't you agree?

I think so, but you can not guarantee 100%. If this really is about records, why is Iran included. That country is pretty well put together.

[Noir]

Isn't it great that Trump gets to appoint Federal judges, too? :thumb:

Not if you want your judiciary to be independent, no.

[Black Diamond]

I think so, but you can not guarantee 100%. If this really is about records, why is Iran included. That country is pretty well put together.
Iran sponsors terror. Ask the state department.

[pete311]

Iran sponsors terror. Ask the state department.
ugh and Saudi Arabia and Lebanon don't?

[Black Diamond]

ugh and Saudi Arabia and Lebanon don't?
Saudi Arabia has had us in their pocket for 40 years. Nothing new.

[pete311]

Saudi Arabia has had us in their pocket for 40 years. Nothing new.
So much for Trump being some badass

[NightTrain]

I think so, but you can not guarantee 100%. If this really is about records, why is Iran included. That country is pretty well put together.

Oh, I don't know... how about the leaders of Iran who chant "Death to America" in public and the hundreds of thousands of Iranians who do the same?

:slap:

[NightTrain]

Saudi Arabia has had us in their pocket for 40 years. Nothing new.

Not true any more thanks to the fracking industry.

They can be shut out easily these days, and they know it. They're mighty anxious to be as friendly as they can, now that they have no Big Stick to wield.

[Black Diamond]

So much for Trump being some badass
I guess to prove his manhood he should put one third of the worlds oil in jeopardy.

[NightTrain]

So much for Trump being some badass

Seeing as how Trump made Chuck Schumer cry on TV, I'd say he's a badass.

I can't think of anyone else that made the opposition cry in public in American political history.

That's pretty badass, if you ask me.

[Black Diamond]

A ban of refugees, signed on Holocaust Memorial Day, outstanding. :salute:
Your veiled Hitler comparison is duly noted.

[Noir]

So, looking at the numbers, how many terrorist attacks have been carried out by visa holders in the US over the past few years?

[Black Diamond]

So, looking at the numbers, how many terrorist attacks have been carried out by visa holders in the US over the past few years?
How many have been carried out by Muslims? And how does one define "the past few years?

[Elessar]

"The 19 terrorists in the Sept. 11 attacks were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates, Myre points out. They are among the Muslim-majority countries not affected by Trump's immigration freeze, but where Trump does business."

There was a National Geographic article back a few years ago that identified the Al Quida operatives as being
dis-enfranchised by their own governments, thus making them prime targets for recruitment.

And where did they spread? All over North Africa and into Europe.

[NightTrain]

So, looking at the numbers, how many terrorist attacks have been carried out by visa holders in the US over the past few years?

Are you incapable of bringing anything to the table?

Slinging shit from the sidelines without doing any sort of research on your own is pretty lame. Get off your ass and look that up for yourself, for once. Then bring it back here and discuss like a well-informed adult.

[Abbey Marie]

Well, revelarts, it should be obvious to anyone...besides Donnie's fans...that he doesn't give a shit about law or precedent. But let's look at the countries that made Donnie's list, and those that didn't.
Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen are on Donnie's list. According to statistics compiled by the conservative think tank, the Cato Institute between 1975 and 2015, not a single American was killed by any citizen from any of these countries. And, oddly enough, Donnie doesn't have ANY business interests in these countries.
Now, if we look at that very same data set, we see that four countries accounted for the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans. Those nations are Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Turkey, yet they appear nowhere on Donnie's list. And the striking coincidence here is that Donnie has business interests in ALL four of these countries. SO, you see, Donnie's list has nothing to do with protecting America, and everything to do with protecting his business interests. A clear violation of his constitutional duties, not that he gives a damn about those.

Please share your extensive knowledge of current intelligence gathered by the CIA and the NSA, so we too can evaluate which of these countries pose a threat. Surely you know all this, in order to take the stance you do.

[Noir]

Are you incapable of bringing anything to the table?

Slinging shit from the sidelines without doing any sort of research on your own is pretty lame. Get off your ass and look that up for yourself, for once. Then bring it back here and discuss like a well-informed adult.

Well I'm currently coming up with zero, do you have an advance on that?

[Kathianne]

It was the Obama administration that identified the 7 countries as areas of concern:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-administration-chose-the-7-countries/


How the Trump administration chose the 7 countries in the immigration executive order

By Kyle Blaine and Julia Horowitz, CNN
Updated 4:38 PM ET, Sun January 29, 2017




<cite class="el-editorial-source" style="font-size: 1.2rem; background-color: rgb(254, 254, 254); color: rgb(38, 38, 38); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: CNN, &quot;Helvetica Neue&quot;, Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: 700;">(CNN)</cite>The seven Muslim-majority countries targeted by President Trump in his executive order on immigration were initially identified as "countries of concern" under the Obama administration.

Trump's order (http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/politics/donald-trump-refugees-executive-order/index.html) bars citizens from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen from entering the U.S. for the next 90 days.

In December 2015, President Obama signed into law a measure placing limited restrictions on certain travelers who had visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria on or after March 1, 2011. Two months later, the Obama administration added (https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-restrictions-visa-waiver-program) Libya, Somalia, and Yemen to the list, in an effort, the administration said, to address "the growing threat from foreign terrorist fighters."


The restrictions specifically limited what is known as visa-waiver travel by those who had visited one of the seven countries within the specified time period. People who previously could have entered the United States without a visa were instead required to apply for one if they had traveled to one of the seven countries.

Under the law (https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/visit/visa-waiver-program.html), dual citizens of visa-waiver countries and Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria could no longer travel to the U.S. without a visa. Dual citizens of Libya, Somalia, and Yemen could, however, still use the visa-waiver program if they hadn't traveled to any of the seven countries after March 2011.

Trump's order (http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/text-of-trump-executive-order-nation-ban-refugees/index.html) is much broader. It bans all citizens from those seven countries from entering the U.S. and leaves green card holders subject to being rescreened after visiting those countries.

...

[NightTrain]

Well I'm currently coming up with zero, do you have an advance on that?

Try going to google and typing in "USA terrorist attacks" and see what that brings up.


Yep, I know.... this is real advanced stuff.

[Noir]

Try going to google and typing in "USA terrorist attacks" and see what that brings up.


Yep, I know.... this is real advanced stuff.

Yep, and then am going through the terrorists seeing which held visas. Zero. Do you have an advance on zero?

[NightTrain]

Yep, and then am going through the terrorists seeing which held visas. Zero. Do you have an advance on zero?

Let us know how your research turns out, Sport.

We're all counting on you.

[Black Diamond]

Before 9/11, how many pilot terrorists had taken flying lessons?

[NightTrain]

Before 9/11, how many pilot terrorists had taken flying lessons?

I can't bring myself to do it... so, would you explain to Boy Wonder what document is required to travel to other countries for me?

For a liberal with all the correct answers, he sure measures up short where the rubber meets the road.

[aboutime]

Yep, and then am going through the terrorists seeing which held visas. Zero. Do you have an advance on zero?


Noir. Are you aware of how foolish you appear to be to most of us here on DP?

You are almost as qualified as petey, or Balu..both of whom seem in competition with you, in efforts to see which one of you can produce more useless propaganda.

[Black Diamond]

I can't bring myself to do it... so, would you explain to Boy Wonder what document is required to travel to other countries for me?

For a liberal with all the correct answers, he sure measures up short where the rubber meets the road.
Truth be told, I was going to say pilots license. But I think those assholes only learned to steer planes, maybe take off. I remember hearing they never learned how to land when they took flying lessons in Minnesota.

[Kathianne]

All the airport protests seem to be very well organized now, like Soros funded to some extent.

With that said, once again I'm faced with 'agreeing with the idea to an extent, the way it was presented and executed leaves me cold.'

It seems for one reason or another, no consultation with Homeland, State, Justice, or even appropriate Congressional committee leaders. Like it or not, governing by fiat doesn't play well here. It didn't under Obama and it will not under Trump.

The largest numbers of illegals here today are from overstaying visas. The idea of addressing that is certainly overdue. The problem comes with signing what appears to be a badly worded order, not preparing those that would need to apply and enforce. The fact that green card holders were being treated the same as any other flying in was a bad mistake-one that could easily have been avoided with said consultations.

Then there was the problem of near immediate attempts towards enforcement, trapping people that had valid visas on the way here, being caught with a change in 'law' upon landing. That some of the first folks affected were translators that had been working for years with the troops or those caring for the troops was so bad on the face of it. These are people that had risked their and their families lives.

Now if instead they'd identified and explained the problems the US faces regarding terrorist threats from those overstaying their visas; second generation immigrants from identified countries and others; etc. then they could have built some support or at least have pulled those like myself, that while skeptical of what may come, want security for the country.

There's little doubt that those who truly supported Trump wholeheartedly, they are not disappointed. However, many more voted for him because of Hillary, they aren't as easily convinced. Then there is the smaller number which voted for neither and are still being pushed towards support by the left and repelled from support by concerns like what is happening now. Don't forget the largest numbers of all, those that voted for Hillary or what she represents.

If this administration is to be successful it needs to find some way to keep all but the last and largest group at least tentatively on board. Obama never did, which is why he ruled by EO's rather than legislation; why he spoke in ideals rather than reasoning. Trump avoids the flowery speaking style of Obama, but the lack of attention to detail or understanding of those that consider other issues is very much alike so far.

If he could recognize that many want solutions to many of the problems he sees, but also want more thought given, he would have much more support. Lord knows, folks like me aren't going to protest him or even his opposition, but he is not going to get the support he needs for long-term change, (beyond EO's), without it.

[Kathianne]

Just went to check FB, family is often just waking up and telling what's in store for the day. On my feed, this popped up:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444385/trump-refugee-order-right-substance-wrong-rollout?utm_source=social&utm_campaign=refugee-order&utm_medium=facebook&utm_content=editors

Yeah, I know "National Review." :rolleyes:

I would hope that perhaps though, some in the administration would read it for content and consider how little would need to be said to help diffuse all but the most radical. That if there had been preparation and consultation, most Americans would be supportive. Indeed, I saw a poll that still has more people agreeing with the need to address the visa problems than in favor of just letting anyone in. It's called 'building a consensus.'

[Kathianne]

Last 'agree with' piece. No matter the level of support one gives or withholds from an administration, looking at the details is important. Obama failed for me with both ideas and execution, that's why he earned 'worst president' for me. Carter, at least as president, seemed to have his heart in the right place.

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/255860/


JANUARY 30, 2017


YEAH, IN PARTICULAR THE GREEN CARD THING WAS A MAJOR UNFORCED ERROR: Jonathan Adler: President Trump may hire “only the best people” but he did not rely upon them to draft and implement his latest Executive Order. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/29/president-trump-may-hire-only-the-best-people-but-he-did-not-rely-upon-them-to-draft-and-implement-his-latest-executive-order/?utm_term=.e0a075a086b0)


Whatever one thinks of the underlying policy, the degree of administrative incompetence in its execution is jaw-dropping. . . .


Under normal circumstances, I believe that the policy embodied in the Trump EO is lawful under existing precedent and would survive judicial review. That is, I believe the executive branch may decide to identify specific countries from which immigrants and others seeking entry into the country must receive “extreme vetting” and that the President may order a suspension of refugees from particular places (as Obama did with Iraq in 2011). Despite some of the President’s comments during the campaign about wanting a “Muslim ban,” this EO does not come anywhere close to effectuating such a ban, as it largely focuses on countries that were previously identified as sources of potential terror threats.


I stress “under normal circumstances” because these are not normal circumstances. The cavalier and reckless manner in which this specific EO was developed and implemented will likely give judges pause — and with good reason. Courts typically give a degree of deference to executive branch actions under the assumption that polices are implemented after serious consideration of relevant legal and policy questions. Indeed, the more serious the government interest allegedly being served, the more serious one expects the government’s internal review to be (unless, of course, there are exigent circumstances necessitating immediate action, but that was not the case here).


Yes, this is Trump’s first screw-up (as opposed to policy that people don’t like). He needs to be sure there aren’t more.



Plus: “Many of the things the Trump Administration wishes to do to reverse Obama Administration policies, particularly those embodied in duly promulgated regulations, will require careful and patient lawyering. The failure to properly vet and flyspeck administrative actions will leave them vulnerable to legal challenge.” One of the reasons the Reagan Revolution bogged down in court on many fronts was precisely this sort of failure. Don’t do it again.

[NightTrain]

I agree that it could have been executed better, for sure.

By not being crystal clear that legal green card holders were okay, Trump inadvertently gave democrats something to finally sink their teeth in to.

At any rate, once the 200 or so caught while in transit are sorted out, I think this will die down despite Schumer's blubbering on TV with those confused muslim kids standing beside him.

[NightTrain]

Just went to check FB, family is often just waking up and telling what's in store for the day. On my feed, this popped up:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444385/trump-refugee-order-right-substance-wrong-rollout?utm_source=social&utm_campaign=refugee-order&utm_medium=facebook&utm_content=editors

Yeah, I know "National Review." :rolleyes: '

While there are a few authors I don't care for at NR, the overriding factor for me that keeps me coming back is Victor Davis Hanson. He's such a great writer that even if all the other articles were Al Sharpton hatchet jobs, I'd still check in and skim for VDH.

Jonah is a dirtbag, but at least he's intelligent and tries to justify his positions... ad nauseam.

I'd guess I agree and enjoy about 60% of their articles these days, as opposed to about 5% up to and during the election. VDH was the only one during those times that still spoke to me, the others threw in with MSM and after witnessing that, I'm somewhat leery - but I'm sure they were doing as Jonah had directed them since Hillary was a 'sure thing' and there was no path to 270.

[Black Diamond]

CATO Institute
but if it's true, does the source really matter to honest people? revelarts. I understand the point you're making here. Please consider the national review piece.

[Black Diamond]

Just went to check FB, family is often just waking up and telling what's in store for the day. On my feed, this popped up:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444385/trump-refugee-order-right-substance-wrong-rollout?utm_source=social&utm_campaign=refugee-order&utm_medium=facebook&utm_content=editors

Yeah, I know "National Review." :rolleyes:

I would hope that perhaps though, some in the administration would read it for content and consider how little would need to be said to help diffuse all but the most radical. That if there had been preparation and consultation, most Americans would be supportive. Indeed, I saw a poll that still has more people agreeing with the need to address the visa problems than in favor of just letting anyone in. It's called 'building a consensus.'
I'll take it over the New York Times any day of the week.

[jimnyc]

I agree there seemed to be a disconnect in how it was presented or brought forth. I read an article last night that stated the DHS was well aware and things went smoothly, but I think a lot of what we are mainly seeing is feedback from the people and the news media, who of course are the last to find out. I think they should have had a warning built up to this perhaps, even if it were short notice. I have no problem with the idea at all. And it's NOT a "muslim ban" as the media and many others claim. Then I read another article where they condemned Trump personally because 6 Christians ended up being sent back to Syria. Make up your mind then, is this a muslim ban? No. It's a short term ban coming from AREAS leading up to what is hopefully better vetting of refugees and others.

I give him bad grades for presentation and communication, but an A+ for order itself.

[NightTrain]

According to Rasmussen, most voters back the ban.

Now watch as the grandstanding disappears from democrats.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/30/voters-back-idea-trumps-travel-halt/

Liberals on the wrong side of the issue. Again.

[pete311]

According to Rasmussen, most voters back the ban.

Now watch as the grandstanding disappears from democrats.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/30/voters-back-idea-trumps-travel-halt/

Liberals on the wrong side of the issue. Again.

oh god, this is so rich, now you trust polls...

[Black Diamond]

oh god, this is so rich, now you trust polls...
Maybe we shouldn't. After you guaranteed trump would lose based on them.

[pete311]

Maybe we shouldn't. After you guaranteed trump would lose based on them.

Couldn't agree more

[Gunny]

Last 'agree with' piece. No matter the level of support one gives or withholds from an administration, looking at the details is important. Obama failed for me with both ideas and execution, that's why he earned 'worst president' for me. Carter, at least as president, seemed to have his heart in the right place.

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/255860/

Jimmy Carter was one kusy President. He let his utopian idealism get between him and making decisions in the real world.

Having said that, he is a good man with a heart of gold. There's more than one Habitats for Humanity homes around here with Gunny wiring. I actually met him when I was a kid. My Grandma L was BIG into GA politics.

Obama on the other hand is just leftwing trash. Everything he did was racist. UnAmerican and designed to undermine the ideals and principles this country was founded on. He can't die soon enough for me.

Here's some Carter trivia: He was a Navy officer. He had flat feet. He would roll the arches of his feet on the old glass Coke bottles for hours. The Academy won't take people with flat feet. The man has determination. He just generally aimed it the wrong way.

[NightTrain]

Couldn't agree more

Of any political group that blindly trusts polls, it's you moonbats, Petey!

Whatsamatter? No rikey polls anymore? :laugh:

[KarlMarx]

Do you want to know what kills me?

A few weeks ago Obama ends the "wet foot/dry foot" policy. That policy, in effect, allowed Cubans fleeing from the Castro regime a chance to establish residency in this country.

And once Obama ended that policy the Cuban government accommodated Obama and agreed to accept the return of those Cubans. In effect, guaranteeing that those people will face labor camps or prison when they return.

And not one word from the Left. Not one tear was shed by Schumer.

And here we are arguing over a temporary ban on residents from seven countries known to harbor and train terrorists.

WTF

[aboutime]

FLASHBACK: Obama Suspended Iraq Refugee Program for Six Months Over Terrorism Fears in 2011

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2017/01/29/flashback-obama-2011-suspended-iraq-refugee-program-six-months-terrorism-fears/

[fj1200]

Vetted enough to satisfy professionals who do it for a living, and not a inept community organizer's political agenda to create reliable democrat welfare-rangers.

That's pretty much how they do it now.

[Gunny]

Do you want to know what kills me?

A few weeks ago Obama ends the "wet foot/dry foot" policy. That policy, in effect, allowed Cubans fleeing from the Castro regime a chance to establish residency in this country.

And once Obama ended that policy the Cuban government accommodated Obama and agreed to accept the return of those Cubans. In effect, guaranteeing that those people will face labor camps or prison when they return.

And not one word from the Left. Not one tear was shed by Schumer.

And here we are arguing over a temporary ban on residents from seven countries known to harbor and train terrorists.

WTF

KarlMarx what was his point to ending wet foot/dry foot? I didn't hear about that.

[Balu]

I wonder, is USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 valid or concealed?All the actions of the President Trump tune with this act. (SEC. 106. PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY.) https://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

[Kathianne]

@KarlMarx (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=5) what was his point to ending wet foot/dry foot? I didn't hear about that.

It was timed with inauguration. 'Since our relations with Cuba are normalized' so should our immigration policy be, no more exception.'

[NightTrain]

That's pretty much how they do it now.

Precisely. :thumb:

[fj1200]

Precisely. :thumb:

Yup, satisfying professionals who do it for a living. :thumb:

[NightTrain]

Yup, satisfying professionals who do it for a living. :thumb:

And when those professionals give Trump their opinion that they're satisfied with vetting from those nations, the ban will be lifted. :thumb:

[fj1200]

And when those professionals give Trump their opinion that they're satisfied with vetting from those nations, the ban will be lifted. :thumb:

I imagine so. I've been told that there is no way that they can be vetted.

[NightTrain]

I imagine so. I've been told that there is no way that they can be vetted.

And the beauty is the end result : we don't allow unvetted people in. Problem solved. :thumb:

[fj1200]

And the beauty is the end result : we don't allow unvetted people in. Problem solved. :thumb:

We don't now. :dunno:

[NightTrain]

We don't now. :dunno:

Precisely! :thumb:

[Gunny]

It was timed with inauguration. 'Since our relations with Cuba are normalized' so should our immigration policy be, no more exception.'

That IS interesting indeed. Wonder what the motive is. When I was living in S FL, they could claim refugee status. The government would pay for their schooling, set them up in business and buy them a house. I wonder how that is affected ....

[Kathianne]

This sums it up pretty well from a guy that supports Trump:

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/01/31/ryan-confusion-on-eo-rollout-regrettable-but-policy-is-something-we-support/

[Gunny]

This sums it up pretty well from a guy that supports Trump:

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/01/31/ryan-confusion-on-eo-rollout-regrettable-but-policy-is-something-we-support/

You know, or should know by now, what I think of Trump. I don't see slamming him at every turn as a solution. As far as firing her goes, that would have been my FIRST move so this complaining about timing makes little sense to me. Unless the fact he let her last a week matters.

Nobody cared about procedure and/or appearances for the last 8 years. Now all of a sudden it's important. The end result is what matters.

[Kathianne]

You know, or should know by now, what I think of Trump. I don't see slamming him at every turn as a solution. As far as firing her goes, that would have been my FIRST move so this complaining about timing makes little sense to me. Unless the fact he let her last a week matters.

Nobody cared about procedure and/or appearances for the last 8 years. Now all of a sudden it's important. The end result is what matters.

A week? Hardly.

No one is trashing him at every turn, not slobbering over his every move is not trashing. He flubbed this one thing. Bigley!

[pete311]

White House rejects DHS research on travel ban: report
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/321165-white-house-rebuffs-dhs-report-finding-little-evidence-to-support

[Gunny]

A week? Hardly.

No one is trashing him at every turn, not slobbering over his every move is not trashing. He flubbed this one thing. Bigley!

Come on, Kath .. don't make me defend Trump. I'm defending a position. Happens to have his name on it. I can't help that. Watch some late night TV. Especially one of the networks. They are ground pounding him.

This may not mean much to me or you, but people actually believe this sh*t. THAT means something to us all.

[Kathianne]

My post was on the original EO and stands, in fact it seems that most in the administration, if not Trump, agree and after all the court stuff, got around to a rewrite.

Must not have all the dots and t's crossed, so early next week.

Not bashing then or now, just saying that when things need to be addressed, they should be.

[Black Diamond]

My post was on the original EO and stands, in fact it seems that most in the administration, if not Trump, agree and after all the court stuff, got around to a rewrite.

Must not have all the dots and t's crossed, so early next week.

Not bashing then or now, just saying that when things need to be addressed, they should be.
It was poorly rolled out the first time.

[Gunny]

It was poorly rolled out the first time.

Let's reverse the position. How many of these countries are WE allowed to go into without proper ID?

[Black Diamond]

Let's reverse the position. How many of these countries are WE allowed to go into without proper ID?
I agree with a travel ban. I don't agree with half assing an order so that it's susceptible to legal challenge.

[Gunny]

I agree with a travel ban. I don't agree with half assing an order so that it's susceptible to legal challenge.I agree. Been sick and had grandpa duty lately. I missed something? Where does the half-sssing come in to play?

[Elessar]

Thanks, from all of us here at DP gabby. Thanks for showing us.....YOU REALLY ARE A SICK, HATE-FILLED, IDIOT. Thanks...finally.

That has to be the stupidest comparison post I have seen. Compare our President
with Hitler? Too much gin in you?

Obama was a racist dictator. Why not post one with him?

[Black Diamond]

I agree. Been sick and had grandpa duty lately. I missed something? Where does the half-sssing come in to play?
The initial executive order was half assed and was open to legal challenge. The new one is hopefully air tight.

[Black Diamond]

That has to be the stupidest comparison post I have seen. Compare our President
with Hitler? Too much gin in you?

Obama was a racist dictator. Why not post one with him?
She spent too much time with Ashley Judd