Trump's published Immigration policies MEGATHREAD

[Maritah 101]

Just now, verneforchat said:

What an asshat!

 

Then why block green card holders? What an outstanding liar and an absolute demented person.

I guess for further questions and screening? As far I understand is not a "ban" is more like a suspension for 90 days meanwhile they work in new way to do vetting . But that's just my understanding. 

[verneforchat 139]

Just now, Maritah said:

I guess for further questions and screening? As far I understand is not a "ban" is more like a suspension for 90 days meanwhile they work in new way to do vetting . But that's just my understanding. 

screening GC holders? 

 

It is a ban for 90 days. And no one can say for sure if it will remain to 90 days.

[Maritah 101]

2 minutes ago, verneforchat said:

screening GC holders? 

 

It is a ban for 90 days. And no one can say for sure if it will remain to 90 days.

 

Oh my bad, I was talking about the ones that are immigrating for first time. What I can say that  is a statement  out there made for White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus   that green card holders not will be affected, here is the link: 

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/full-priebus-interview-immigration-ban-could-include-more-countries-865258563844 

 

 

Edited January 29, 2017 by Maritah

[verneforchat 139]

Just now, Maritah said:

 

Oh my bad, I was talling about the ones that are immigrating for first time, is a statement made for White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus   that green card holders not will be affected, here is the link: 

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/full-priebus-interview-immigration-ban-could-include-more-countries-865258563844 

 

 

Yep i saw that. And yet the actual EO also bars green card holders. So either Preibus is trying to placate the media, or did they make changes to the EO?

[Maritah 101]

 

Can you please show me where I can see the EO that express clearly that affects GC holders? so I can check it and show it to my husband?  Thanks in advance. 

[geowrian 22,337]

6 minutes ago, verneforchat said:

What an asshat!

 

Then why block green card holders? What an outstanding liar and an absolute demented person.

 

So why not ban people from Saudi or Pakistan etc who actually fund and harbor terrorists? Does Guiliani need to remind him of who did 9/11?

Yes.

 

Double yes.

 

Or let's not target any country....which is what current laws require. Some of us (myself included) have fiances living/working in those countries who are just as innocent of any sort of wrongdoing as everybody else, and deserves to be treated as such.

 

When this whole ordeal is over, Trump will claim extreme vetting is in place and it's the best vetting ever and America's the safest its ever been...even if there are no practical differences between the process before and after the EO.

[verneforchat 139]

Just now, geowrian said:

Yes.

 

Double yes.

 

Or let's not target any country....which is what current laws require. Some of us (myself included) have fiances living/working in those countries who are just as innocent of any sort of wrongdoing as everybody else, and deserves to be treated as such.

 

When this whole ordeal is over, Trump will claim extreme vetting is in place and it's the best vetting ever and America's the safest its ever been...even if there are no practical differences between the process before and after the EO.

Someone sane forgot to tell Trump that the most people affected from these terrorist activities and civil wars are Muslims themselves. 

[Maritah 101]

 

Well, in the way that I see it, the Immigration and Nationality Act give to the President legal authority for bar aliens outside the United States, so I guess the Congress need work to fix or adjust this kind of situation

 

"The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides that individual aliens outside the United States are “inadmissible”—or barred from admission to the country—on health, criminal, security, and other grounds set forth in the INA. However, the INA also grants the Executive several broader authorities that could be used to exclude certain individual aliens or classes of aliens for reasons that are not specifically prescribed in the INA. Section 212(f) of the INA is arguably the broadest and best known of these authorities. It provides, in relevant part, that “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444381/trumps-immigrarion-ban-his-legal-authority

[geowrian 22,337]

11 minutes ago, Maritah said:

 

Well, in the way that I see it, the Immigration and Nationality Act give to the President legal authority for bar aliens outside the United States, so I guess the Congress need work to fix or adjust this kind of situation

 

"The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides that individual aliens outside the United States are “inadmissible”—or barred from admission to the country—on health, criminal, security, and other grounds set forth in the INA. However, the INA also grants the Executive several broader authorities that could be used to exclude certain individual aliens or classes of aliens for reasons that are not specifically prescribed in the INA. Section 212(f) of the INA is arguably the broadest and best known of these authorities. It provides, in relevant part, that “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444381/trumps-immigrarion-ban-his-legal-authority

Except that Congress later passed a law (in 1965) saying:

 

"Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or 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."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152

 

This is something the courts need to rule on, unfortunately.

Edited January 30, 2017 by geowrian

[LionessDeon 2,060]

22 minutes ago, Maritah said:

 

Oh my bad, I was talking about the ones that are immigrating for first time. What I can say that  is a statement  out there made for White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus   that green card holders not will be affected, here is the link: 

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/full-priebus-inte

22 minutes ago, Maritah said:

 

Oh my bad, I was talking about the ones that are immigrating for first time. What I can say that  is a statement  out there made for White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus   that green card holders not will be affected, here is the link: 

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/full-priebus-interview-immigration-ban-could-include-more-countries-865258563844 

 

 

rview-immigration-ban-could-include-more-countries-865258563844 

 

 

He kept saying "greencard holders going forward". Whatever that means. He didn't seem to want to explain what that statement meant. 

 

Edited January 30, 2017 by LionessDeon

[Maritah 101]

7 minutes ago, geowrian said:

Except that Congress later pass a law (in 1965) saying:

 

"Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or 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."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152

 

This is something the courts need to rule on, unfortunately.

 

That's good news! thanks for share it! 

[hasheesha 45]

22 minutes ago, geowrian said:

Except that Congress later passed a law (in 1965) saying:

 

"Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or 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."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152

 

This is something the courts need to rule on, unfortunately.

 The one thing missing in this is religion. So the EO as it is seems to be illegal as it targets people based on national origin. He could easily change that and specify Muslims and it will no longer be illegal... smh

[geowrian 22,337]

Just now, hasheesha said:

 The one thing missing in this is religion. So the EO as it is seems to be illegal as it targets people based on national origin. He could easily change that and specify Muslims and it will no longer be illegal... smh

Then it would likely fall under other Constitutional grounds...but yes, not under this law specifically.

[Transborderwife 4,666]

This is interesting:

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-hussen-reaction-to-trump-travel-restrictions-1.3957515

 

Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen said Canada has been assured by the White House that people can enter the U.S. provided they have a valid Canadian permanent resident card and a passport from one of the seven countries affected.

Dual citizens with a Canadian passport are also allowed into the U.S.

[Leo7777 243]

Regarding why Saudi Arabia and other countries are not on the list.

 

Individual countries cannot absolutely control what their citizens do in country and when they are in other countries.  So just because the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia does not in itself condemn the Saudi government.

 

But there are governments who actively promote terrorism, provide government funding for it, allow terrorist training bases to exist within the country, etc.

 

And most are forgetting that this list of 7 was not compiled over night.  The list was complied quite some time ago by the Obama Administration . . . State Department, Intelligence Services, etc.