Thread: President Donald Trump

Originally Posted by Humbert

^I hope you feel safer.

Mow your lawn today. Maybe we'll get lucky. Who knows?

It's not about how I feel.

It's about general common sense.

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

It's about general common sense.

Dumbert left all that behind months ago, when he jumped on the bandwagon called the "Clinton Disaster"

^^

Just a sober and sensible look at what has happened...which is not very much. Fact versus hysteria. Doubtful that such reporting will be accepted or appreciated by the howling mob though.

On the other side we see how Ivanka is taking heat because she "tweeted" something about her party dress at a time of "humanitarian crisis" caused by a temporary halt to migration from half a dozen shitholes of the world; until a better vetting process can be put in place.

The term crisis takes on yet another new meaning.....

Obviously we need more marches with more celebrities and lots of crying and group hugging.

Indeed Earl.

Here is an article from the Atlantic.

Asking for a temporary halt of 120 days is causing all of these protests. The only country with an undetermined date on the ban is Syria - which is a very prudent move b/c of what's going on in Syria and all of the players involved.


What Trump's Executive Order on Immigration Does—and Doesn't Do
The order has caused chaos; White House statements haven’t clarified what’s going on.

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

KRISHNADEV CALAMUR
Updated on Sunday, January 29, 2017

President Trump signed on Friday an executive order that severely restricts immigration from seven Muslim countries, suspends all refugee admission for 120 days, and bars all Syrian refugees indefinitely. The order has been widely criticized and praised—but it led to massive protests at several airports across the country where people with valid documentation were detained. Legal challenges against those detentions were successful. The administration’s response Sunday only made the situation more unclear.

Here’s what the executive order does and doesn’t do, the challenges to it, and how the Trump administration responded.

Who is not affected?

The executive order applies only to non-U.S. citizens, so anyone with U.S. citizenship—whether that person in natural-born or naturalized—is not affected. But on Sunday, Reince Preibus, the White House chief of staff, said on NBC’s Meet the Press that Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents would have the “discretionary authority” to question U.S. citizens coming from the seven countries. CBP agents have had that authority even before Friday’s executive order.

“I would suspect that if you’re an American citizen traveling back and forth to Libya, you’re likely to be subjected to further questioning when you come into an airport,” he said.

Who is affected?

For 120 days, the order bars the entry of any refugee who is awaiting resettlement in the U.S. It also prohibits all Syrian refugees from entering the U.S. until further notice. Additionally, it bans the citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries—Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen—from entering the U.S. on any visa category.*

On Saturday this included individuals who are permanent residents of the U.S. (green-card holders) who were traveling overseas to visit family or for work—though a senior administration official said their applications would be considered on a case-by-case basis. The official also said green-card holders from those countries who are in the U.S. will have to meet with a consular officer before leaving the U.S.

News reports suggested the White House overruled the Department of Homeland Security’s recommendations on excluding green-card holders from the executive orders. Preibus, on Meet the Press, denied that, then appeared to suggest that the order won’t affect permanent residents going forward, but when pressed appeared to contradict himself.

“We didn’t overrule the Department of Homeland Security, as far as green-card holders moving forward, it doesn’t affect them,” he said. But when pressed by Chuck Todd, the show’s host, on whether the order affected green-card holders, he replied: “Well, of course it does. If you’re traveling back and forth, you’re going to be subjected to further screening.”


On Sunday evening, John Kelly, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, offered more definitive guidance. “In applying the provisions of the president’s executive order, I hereby deem the entry of lawful permanent residents to be in the national interest,” he said in a statement. “Accordingly, absent the receipt of significant derogatory information indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare, lawful permanent resident status will be a dispositive factor in our case-by-case determinations.”

The order also targets individuals of those countries who hold dual citizenship with another country. For instance, an individual who holds both Iraqi and Canadian citizenships—though the U.K. foreign secretary said the U.S. had assured him it didn’t apply to U.K. nationals.

It does not apply to individuals who hold U.S. citizenship along with citizenship of another country—though a CBP agent can presumably question such a person based on his or her discretion.

Why were those seven countries chosen?

Trump had made national security a centerpiece of his election campaign—at one point calling for a “total and complete” ban on all Muslims coming to the U.S. Although the executive order does not do that, Sean Spicer, the White House spokesman, said on ABC’s This Week that the president “hit the ground running, had a flurry of activity, to do exactly what he said he was going to do.”

Spicer noted that the seven counties put on the list were chosen by the Obama administration. Indeed, it has its roots in the visa-waiver program. The U.S. allows the citizens of more than 30 countries to visit for short stays without a visa under this program. But that visa waiver does not apply if a citizen of an eligible country has visited—with some exceptions—Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen on or after March 1, 2011—under measures put in place by the Obama administration. Those individuals must apply for a visa at a U.S. consulate. These seven countries are listed under section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12) of the U.S. code, and it is this code that Trump’s executive order cited while banning citizens of those nations.

What is the impact?

The number of permanent residents from these countries is relatively small. For instance, 1,016,518 green cards were issued in 2014. Of these, 19,153 went to Iraqis and 11,615 to Iranians, according to the Department of Homeland Security’s data. These two countries make up the overwhelming majority of U.S. permanent residents from among the seven nations, which together have 500,000 permanent resident in the U.S., according to ProPublica. But the seven nations, as I reported this week, also account for 40 percent of U.S. refugee intake.

Numbers, however, seldom tell the whole story. There have been multiple reports since the executive order was signed of people being prevented from boarding flights; refugees, who had gone through the years-long process before being approved to come to the U.S., stranded in third countries; of Iraqis who had worked for years with the U.S. military being denied entry; of Iranian students stuck overseas; of U.S. tech companies recalling its foreign workers because of the possible impact. And there have been protests against the order at airports across the country, including at New York’s JFK International Airport and Dulles Airport outside Washington, D.C. , and the Los Angeles International Airport where lawyers, demonstrators, and the media descended to witness the order’s impact.


Is this a Muslim ban?

Technically, no. The ban includes seven majority Muslim countries, but by no means are these states the most populous Muslim countries, nor are they among the top sources of Muslim immigration to the U.S., nor have they produced terrorists in the same numbers as other Muslim countries not on the list. Indeed, Muslims from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, and other countries can still visit the U.S.

Still, advocacy groups challenging the order say a Muslim ban is precisely what it amounts to. Indeed, they cited former the words New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s comments Saturday on Fox News. Giuliani said that Trump had asked for a “Muslim ban,” but one that was done legally. He said he and a panel of experts “focused on, instead of religion, danger.”

“The areas of the world that create danger for us, which is a factual basis, not a religious basis,” he said. “Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible.”

He went onto say the ban was "not based on religion.”

“It’s based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country,” he said.

“What we’ve seen here is stunning,” David Leopold, a Cleveland-based immigration lawyer who is a past president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said on a conference call Saturday with reporters. “No president ever ever has used the authority and statute of the law to ban people based on their religion, ban people based on their nationality.”


He said President Carter’s ban on Iranians in 1980 after the Islamic revolution “barred certain classifications, not the whole country.”

Is there legal action?

Yes. Judges in four cities—Alexandria, Virginia; Boston; New York; and Seattle—ruled against the detention of individuals at airports—in cases filed by the ACLU and others. The rulings appear to be limited to those people already at U.S. airports or in transit. They do not appear to say anything about the legality of the president’s actions. DHS said it would comply with the orders—and some,but not all, of the people being detained at airports were allowed to leave.

The rulings were in response to legal challenges filed Saturday by the ACLU on behalf of two Iraqis who were detained at JFK Airport. The group also filed what’s known as a motion for class certification, which would allow it to represent others who say they were detained at airports and other ports of entry to the U.S. But there may be challenges ahead.

Indeed, Trump has broad discretion under the law to bar a class of person deemed detrimental to the U.S. from entering the country. Leopold, the immigration lawyer, said the issue will have to be resolved by the courts.

“The problem we’ve got there,” Leopold said, “ is that this is unprecedented.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/news/arc...uslims/514844/

Izzy Berdan, of Boston, centre, chants slogans with other demonstrators during a rally against President Donald Trump's order that restricts travel to the US. Photo / AP

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

It's ignorance by the protesters. They made a knee-jerk reaction.

No, they excersized their constitutional right. Do you have a problem with the constitution?

A knee jerk reaction is what Trump just did.

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

As for 2 deaths by "islamic Jihad" immigrants, do you believe the Saudi immigrant in the San Bernadino shooting was an immigrant. She was an immigrant from Saudi Arabia b/c of marriage.

Yet Saudi isn't on the list.

Trump must be down the pub today
never mind he will be back on Monday up to some mischief

Originally Posted by pickel

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

It's ignorance by the protesters. They made a knee-jerk reaction.

No, they excersized their constitutional right. Do you have a problem with the constitution?

A knee jerk reaction is what Trump just did.

I've stated that protesting is fine, but it should not be done inside baggage claim, where my parents were trying to get their luggage. They can protest outside.

I've never stated I have a problem with the Constitution.

What Trump Exec Order knee-jerk?

No.

It was carefully thought out: There are about 49-51 nations of the world defined as "muslim countries." Trump put a 120 day ban on 6 and an undetermined ban on 1 (Syria).

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

As for 2 deaths by "islamic Jihad" immigrants, do you believe the Saudi immigrant in the San Bernadino shooting was an immigrant. She was an immigrant from Saudi Arabia b/c of marriage.

Yet Saudi isn't on the list.

I think Saudi not only be on the the list but Saudis be banned from visiting the US on tourist visas.

Saudi Arabia does not give tourist visas to anyone - they should not be in the US on one.

And as you know, KSA promotes islamic violence in the world and inside the United States.

It's a shame the US has been in bed with the Saud family for almost 80 years, and owed Saudi for being on board for the US Dollar to be the OPEC petrol dollar in the early 70s.

The US stille owes Saudi for this. Sadly.

A knee jerk reaction?
trumps doing what he said he would do months ago
that's what freaking the liberals out -
A honest man in the white house

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

It was carefully thought out: There are about 49-51 nations of the world defined as "muslim countries." Trump put a 120 day ban on 6 and an undetermined ban on 1 (Syria).

How many terror attacks have been committed in the U.S. by the seven countries on Trump's list?

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

It was carefully thought out: There are about 49-51 nations of the world defined as "muslim countries." Trump put a 120 day ban on 6 and an undetermined ban on 1 (Syria).

How many terror attacks have been committed in the U.S. by the seven countries on Trump's list?

"Countries" are nation-states, meaning the leader or government of those nation states, not individuals.

We're not talking about the nation state of Yemen, for example. We're talking about individuals coming from Yemen. It's OK to have screening, as Yemen has been in a civil war since 2015 by two factions and those linked to ISIS are there as well.

Nice try at a rhetorical question, Humm. But your using the wrong terminology.

Looks like the autistic screeching about Trump temporarily suspending travel from a few shitholes around the world, while vetting procedures are updated is carrying on unabated.

Libtards.

OBAMA’S ADMINISTRATION MADE THE “MUSLIM BAN” POSSIBLE AND THE MEDIA WON’T TELL YOU
January 28, 2017 · by sfrantzman · in Articles, Uncategorized. ·
By SETH J. FRANTZMAN

I was outraged by the ban on refugees from war-torn countries in the Middle East. I’ve covered refugees fleeing war in Iraq and Syria over the last two years, meeting families on the road in Greece, Serbia and Macedonia, speaking to poor people in Turkey and Jordan and discussing the hopes and fears of people displaced in Iraq. If you want to ban “terrorists,” these are the last people to hit with a refugee ban. Instead the government should be using the best intelligence possible to find people being radicalized, some of whom have lived in the US their whole lives or who come from countries not affected by the ban, such as Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.

So I was outraged, and then I read the executive order. There are many full texts of the order online, such as at CNN, the NYT, the WSJ or Independent. According to most reports Trump was banning “nationals of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States for at least the next 90 days.” This bars people from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. US Senator Elizabeth Warren said “Let’s be clear: A Muslim ban by any other name is still a Muslim ban,” and Senator Chris Murphy claimed “Trump has now handed ISIS a path to rebirth.” Media, such as Vox and the Independent, compared the ban to banning Jews from entry during the Holocaust and bashed Trump for singing the order on Holocaust memorial day. World leaders are “condemning Trump’s Muslim ban,” according to headlines.

I had to see for myself, so I read the executive order. The order does seek “to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States.” It says that it seeks “Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern.” It also says “I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order.” And it targets Syrians specifically. “I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.”

But, wait a sec. According to the reports “The order bars all people hailing from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.” Critics had attacked Trump for selecting these seven countries and not selecting other states “linked to his sprawling business empire.” Bloomberg and Forbes bought into this.

But, wait a sec. I read the order and Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen are not mentioned in it.

Go back and read it again. Do a “ctrl-f” to find “Iraq”. Where is “Iraq” in the order. It’s not there. Only Syria is there. So where are the seven nations? Where is the “Muslim ban”? It turns out this was a form of fake news, or alternative facts. Trump didn’t select seven “Muslim-majority” countries. US President Barack Obama’s administration selected these seven Muslim-majority countries.

The Department of Homeland Security targeted these seven countries over the last years as countries of concern. In February 2016 “The Department of Homeland Security today announced that it is continuing its implementation of the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 with the addition of Libya, Somalia, and Yemen as three countries of concern, limiting Visa Waiver Program travel for certain individuals who have traveled to these countries.” It noted “the three additional countries designated today join Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Syria as countries subject to restrictions for Visa Waiver Program travel for certain individuals.” It was the US policy under Obama to restrict and target people “who have been present in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, at any time on or after March 1, 2011 (with limited government/military exceptions).” This was text of the US Customs and Border Protection in 2015 relating to “the Visa Waiver Program and Terrorist Travel Protection Act of 2015“. The link even includes the seven nation list in it: “Iraq, Syria, Iran, SUdan, Somalia or Yemen.” And the media knew this back in May 2016 when some civil rights groups complained about it. “These restrictions have provoked an outcry from the Iranian-American community, as well as Arab-American and civil-liberties groups, who say the restrictions on dual nationals and certain travelers are discriminatory and could be imposed against American dual nationals.”

It was signed into law on December 18, 2015, as part of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of FY2016.

screen-shot-2017-01-28-at-9-06-25-pm
The Congress and Homeland Security selected these countries in 2016 and before (Screenshot of visa waiver categories, US Customs and Border Protection)
What? So there was a Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 two years before Trump? There was a kind of “Muslim ban” before the Muslim ban? But almost no one critiqued it in 2015 because it was Obama’s administration overseeing it.

So for more than a year it has been US policy to discriminate against, target and even begin to ban people from the seven countries that Trump is accused of banning immigrants and visitors from. CNN even hinted at this by noting “those countries were named in a 2016 law concerning immigration visas as ‘countries of concern.'” But why didn’t CNN note that the seven countries were not named and that in fact they are only on the list because of Obama’s policy?

screen-shot-2017-01-28-at-9-01-43-pm
The “ban” didn’t exclude countries linked to business interests, it targeted countries of “concern” drawn up last year by Obama’s administration and Congress
Because mainstream media has been purposely lying, either due to ignorance or because of unwillingness to read the document and ask questions and because they are too ready to accept “facts” without investigating. They want to blame Trump for a “Muslim ban” because they were ready with that script since last year. And indeed Trump has enacted a harsh executive order cracking down on visitors from these countries (particularly Syrians), but his crackdown only includes those seven countries because of Obama’s policy. Trump’s decision to go beyond the policy and increase the Obama policy harms refugees, but it only increases an existing discriminatory policy, it doesn’t invent it. Reading media reports you would never know that. Most disingenuous, truly bordering on fake news, are the reports that claimed the seven countries were connected to Trump business interests, as if Obama’s DHS picked them because of Trump?

So why didn’t anyone of the thousands of reporters covering this read the same document and ask the same question and do the same investigation of where the seven “countries of concern” came from? A simply Google search would have revealed the history. A bit of searching around US code would have explained it.

screen-shot-2017-01-28-at-9-15-33-pm
Were reports misleading on Trump “Muslim ban”?
The public should be suspicious of Trump’s policies and the media should speak truth to power and demand answers from the administration. But the media should also be truthful with the public and instead of claiming Trump singled out seven countries, it should note that the US Congress and Obama’s Department of Homeland Security had singled out these countries. It should have told us about theTerrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 rather than pretend this list was invented in 2017. Trump’s executive order said “countries of concern,” it didn’t make a list. That list was already made, last year and years before.


https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28...wont-tell-you/

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

"Countries" are nation-states, meaning the leader or government of those nation states, not individuals.
We're not talking about the nation state of Yemen, for example. We're talking about individuals coming from Yemen. It's OK to have screening, as Yemen has been in a civil war since 2015 by two factions and those linked to ISIS are there as well.
Nice try at a rhetorical question, Humm. But your using the wrong terminology.

How many individuals from the 7 countries on the list have committed terrorist acts in the U.S.?

Trump is "taking action", retarded action to appeal to people with the same IQ as his voters.

He's never been asked how many terrorists have committed terrorism in the US that were from countries outside the US.

If he wants to help make America safer, how about a ban on large magazines for weapons or extreme vetting for who can buy a gun. Surely that will immediately affect how many Americans die every year in the US.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

"Countries" are nation-states, meaning the leader or government of those nation states, not individuals.
We're not talking about the nation state of Yemen, for example. We're talking about individuals coming from Yemen. It's OK to have screening, as Yemen has been in a civil war since 2015 by two factions and those linked to ISIS are there as well.
Nice try at a rhetorical question, Humm. But your using the wrong terminology.

How many individuals from the 7 countries on the list have committed terrorist acts in the U.S.?

I'll have to google.

I assume the number is small, but these nations are in disarray b/c of the civil-war turmoil. Syria, Libya, Yemen.

This is about now and the future. The Yemen civil war started in 2015, not long ago.

Nothing wrong with vetting people from these countries.

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

I assume the number is small

The number is 0

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...t-911-countri/

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

I assume the number is small

The number is 0

No terrorist attacks post 9/11 by people from countries in Trump's travel ban? | PolitiFact

I thought 0 was a possibility.

To keep it at 0, then vetting must be done because of the chaos in Syria, Libya, Yemen, etc.

Let's move on to "religious attacks" or "islamic attacks" on individuals, including family members.

It ain't zero, bro'.

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

Let's move on to "religious attacks" or "islamic attacks" on individuals, including family members.

It ain't zero, bro'.

Is that terrorism?

But there have been terrorist attacks by individuals in the U.S. who come from countries where Trump has had business dealings. Funny that somehow these countries did not make the cut.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by longway

Autistic Dumbert's philosophy is to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted, he will screech a lot if people don't do that.

You're a punchable half wit.

Typical libtard response, when myopic fuckwit logic and reason fail, resort to violence, riots, and mindless looting.. Hooouray, HOOORAY!

Originally Posted by RPETER65

US Senator Elizabeth Warren said “Let’s be clear: A Muslim ban by any other name is still a Muslim ban,” and Senator Chris Murphy claimed “Trump has now handed ISIS a path to rebirth.”

ISIS re-born?

Did ISIS die?

An ISIS rebirth will happen because of a 120 day ban on 6 out of 51 muslim countries in the world?

Go back and read it again. Do a “ctrl-f” to find “Iraq”. Where is “Iraq” in the order. It’s not there. Only Syria is there. So where are the seven nations? Where is the “Muslim ban”? It turns out this was a form of fake news, or alternative facts. Trump didn’t select seven “Muslim-majority” countries. US President Barack Obama’s administration selected these seven Muslim-majority countries.

Politicians pandering for the muslim vote? It may very well backfire.

Originally Posted by Humbert

But there have been terrorist attacks by individuals in the U.S. who come from countries where Trump has had business dealings. Funny that somehow these countries did not make the cut.

He has business dealings in all of the 45 other muslim nations in the world that did not "make the cut?"

You're missing one critical thing, Humbert:

1. the state of these nations: they are are in civil wars, and some don't even function as a nation state.

Look at the countries that did not make "the cut."

Notice a difference?

“Let the grassroots turn on the hate because that’s the ONLY thing that will make them do their duty”

Another gem from Steve Bannon. Congratulations Steve on being named to the National Security Council.