“Protection of the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States"

[OriZ 3,157]

3 hours ago, Suss&Camm said:

Two Swedish PhD students with Iranian passports travelling to the USA were stopped and deported... This is impacting THE WRONG people... He wants a result on terrorism... no ppl from those 7 countries have committed terrorist acts on US soil... PhD students can't attend conferences, families are being split up... 
The ppl committing such acts have been from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Lebanon... so even if he was trying to stop the wrong ppl (I still don't agree with how he's doing this)... there is no factual basis for the ban... as for anything else that man does.   

 

Correction...no FATAL attacks on US soil. There have been attacks by people from those countries on US soil that didn't result in deaths, and there have been attacks by them against Americans but not on US soil that did result in death. Regardless, I still need to study this executive order more before I reach a definitive conclusion about it. There are several things I don't like it, for sure, but I'd like to make an educated decision. If it indeed includes GC holders that's a no no. Furthermore, they may have needed to account for people that already boarded their flight before it was signed, or people that already have a visa and say, had a trip planned to the US for the past 8 months and now can't board the flight. I been planning a trip to Alaska since June of last year meant for this coming May and I know I'd be pissed if all of a sudden Alaska decided they aren't letting Vermonters in. Also, the fact Saudi, Pakistan or Afghanistan aren't on it is a bit suspicious as well.

[yuna628 9,744]

1 minute ago, OriZ said:

 

Correction...no FATAL attacks on US soil. There have been attacks by people from those countries on US soil that didn't result in deaths, and there have been attacks by them against Americans but not on US soil that did result in death. Regardless, I still need to study this executive order more before I reach a definitive conclusion about it. There are several things I don't like it, for sure, but I'd like to make an educated decision. If it indeed includes GC holders that's a no no. Furthermore, they may have needed to account for people that already boarded their flight before it was signed, or people that already have a visa and say, had a trip planned to the US for the past 8 months and now can't board the flight. I been planning a trip to Alaska since June of last year meant for this coming May and I know I'd be pissed if all of a sudden Alaska decided they aren't letting Vermonters in. Also, the fact Saudi, Pakistan or Afghanistan aren't on it is a bit suspicious as well.

According to senior DOJ, DHS, and NSC officials, no one from the White House consulted anyone from these agencies in drafting this order (which is standard procedure to assure smoothness and legality) and no one seems to know who came up with it. CBP doesn't even know how to interpret the order. WH officials state that it applies to GC holders, regardless of if the order clarified that or not. Even more strange, I've found a case of a woman who was born in Iran, but has been in the UK citizen since she was a child and had been vacationing in Latin America. She was traveling from that country, merely passing through JFK and onto a flight to return to the UK, and CBP also told her she would not be allowed to enter the US. I have also heard that when detained some officials attempted to use scare tactics to get them to sign documents to give up their green cards and would not allow them use of a lawyer. I would also like to know if it's going to eventually include people that are not citizens of those countries, but merely visited those countries at some point and time. It feels like they're making stuff up as it goes along.. that is no way to treat people.

[yuna628 9,744]

PS: Others, like this LPR were just flat out deported.

 

[Suss&Camm 2,213]

1 minute ago, yuna628 said:

PS: Others, like this LPR were just flat out deported.

 

This is just crazy.. 

[Suss&Camm 2,213]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

I caught that also. What they meant was an Iranian.  Fake news loves word play. 

 

I got family in the Philippines I would love to come see me . They can't and that is nothing new , because Philippines is a high fraud country. Why is it all of a sudden a crisis when someone from a high terrorist country can't just come at will. The media is dishonest and the emotionally unstable buy it hook line and sinker 

They are SWEDISH PhD students.... anyone doing their PhD in Sweden is a Swedish PhD student.. nothing being "fake" since it's clearly said they are from Iran. They were granted visas... they dIid not apply and NOT get the visa.... which would be the case were they considered as fraudulent... it had ONLY to do with the BLANKET BAN. 

 

Edit: I also "caught" your attempted masked insult, calling me "emotionally unstable".. you don't avoid insults simply by speaking over someone's head in 3rd person. I assure you my emotional health is just fine,  thank you for your concern. 

Edited January 28, 2017 by Suss&Camm

[OriZ 3,157]

34 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

According to senior DOJ, DHS, and NSC officials, no one from the White House consulted anyone from these agencies in drafting this order (which is standard procedure to assure smoothness and legality) and no one seems to know who came up with it. CBP doesn't even know how to interpret the order. WH officials state that it applies to GC holders, regardless of if the order clarified that or not. Even more strange, I've found a case of a woman who was born in Iran, but has been in the UK citizen since she was a child and had been vacationing in Latin America. She was traveling from that country, merely passing through JFK and onto a flight to return to the UK, and CBP also told her she would not be allowed to enter the US. I have also heard that when detained some officials attempted to use scare tactics to get them to sign documents to give up their green cards and would not allow them use of a lawyer. I would also like to know if it's going to eventually include people that are not citizens of those countries, but merely visited those countries at some point and time. It feels like they're making stuff up as it goes along.. that is no way to treat people.

I definitely disagree with everything you wrote(not with you but with the content) assuming it is fact.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

17 minutes ago, Suss&Camm said:

They are SWEDISH PhD students.... anyone doing their PhD in Sweden is a Swedish PhD student.. nothing being "fake" since it's clearly said they are from Iran. They were granted visas... they dIid not apply and NOT get the visa.... which would be the case were they considered as fraudulent... it had ONLY to do with the BLANKET BAN. 

 

Edit: I also "caught" your attempted masked insult, calling me "emotionally unstable".. you don't avoid insults simply by speaking over someone's head in 3rd person. I assure you my emotional health is just fine,  thank you for your concern. 

No they are Iranian PHD students studying in Sweden. Big Difference . It  misleading on purpose.  I was not referring to you as being emotionally unstable sorry if you took it that way 

[Suss&Camm 2,213]

18 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

No they are Iranian PHD students studying in Sweden. Big Difference . It  misleading on purpose.  I was not referring to you as being emotionally unstable sorry if you took it that way 

I disagree... if they were Iranian PhD students studying in Sweden they would be enrolled in Iran and there on exchange program. When we as a group would travel for a conference internationally we were the "Swedish PhD group". Not the group from there, there, there and there. This is how we ourselfs speak of it. It is nothing made up by media. You are seeing monsters in the shadows.... turn on the light.

 

And thank you, I accept your apology.

Edited January 29, 2017 by Suss&Camm

[ready4ONE 5,400]

3 hours ago, IDWAF said:

Didn't the 9/11 murderers get their flight training in America? 

Funny, Dear Leader invoked 911 as justification for this travesty, yet not one Country where ANY of the 911 highjackers were from is included in the Executive Order. Face it, Donald Trump is a nut job. Take what you will regarding what that means for anyone falling for his 'justification.'

 

Edited January 29, 2017 by ready4ONE

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

5 hours ago, yuna628 said:

PS: Others, like this LPR were just flat out deported.

 

Not deported, denied re-entry pending further screening at an embassy or consulate.

[OriZ 3,157]

WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Brooklyn came to the aid of scores of refugees and others who were trapped at airports across the United States on Saturday after an executive order signed by President Trump, which sought to keep many foreigners from entering the country, led to chaotic scenes across the globe.

The judge’s ruling blocked part of the president’s actions, preventing the government from deporting some arrivals who found themselves ensnared by the presidential order. But it stopped short of letting them into the country or issuing a broader ruling on the constitutionality of Mr. Trump’s actions.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/refugees-detained-at-us-airports-prompting-legal-challenges-to-trumps-immigration-order.html

 

Probably a good thing. The more I look at it, I don't think I'm a fan.

Edited January 29, 2017 by OriZ

[ready4ONE 5,400]

1 hour ago, IDWAF said:

Not deported, denied re-entry pending further screening at an embassy or consulate.

Yes! And the Nazi's provided housing for Jews, Gypsies and other undesirables at government expense.

 

Your hero is a putz. Donald Trump does not know what he is doing, or vastly misunderstands where he is trying to do it. It's one way, or the other, but day 8 and Trump still has zero days without being a major embarrassment.

[JayJayH 546]

13 hours ago, Suss&Camm said:

Yes.. all ppl with Green Cards from those 7 countries are not being permitted in...ppl in  the country from those countries are being advised not to travel...

This cannot be legal... 

I don't support it. Denying entry to long-time LPRs with no criminal record or ties to terrorism is nothing short of ridiculous.

But it's both legal and has historical precedence. Only U.S. citizens have a right to enter the country.

 

13 hours ago, Suss&Camm said:

Hitler is now in charge of America... and people actually STILL support him... the weekly list of immigrants committing crimes... the bans of muslims... except the ones of trump's choice

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-trump-immigration-ban-conflict-of-interest/

 

Hard to gauge support, but it's probably somewhere around 50% - Whether it will be judged as good or bad policy later will depend largely on what happens next. FiveThirtyEight wrote an absolutely amazing piece on this:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/will-trumps-refugee-ban-have-public-support/

 

Likely, 90 days will go by, the Trump Administration will say "we've got better vetting procedures in place, moratorium lifted", and this will be a side note in American history. Meanwhile, Trump gets to say he fulfilled his promise of 'banning Muslims' until "we can figure out what the hell is going on."

 

10 hours ago, Suss&Camm said:

Trump was right when he said he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and his supporters wouldn't care..

Trump's hardcore supporters make up probably around 25% of voters. He then has about 25% lukewarm support from people who consider the alternative worse, and people who really despise him, but just want to give the Democrats in their current state the middle finger.

 

10 hours ago, Suss&Camm said:

He is also giving priority to ppl from these countries that are christian... yet, it's claimed that it's not discrimination based on faith..

It's not worded that way. Legally, it's actually worded really slick.

 

They're stopping refugee admissions from certain countries, but making exceptions for persecuted religious minorities (which in the Middle East would be predominately Christians and Yazidis). That's not faith based discrimination per se - It's admitting refugees who belong to a persecuted and marginalized minority (those words are usually music in the ears of leftists).

Edited January 29, 2017 by JayJayH

[Suss&Camm 2,213]

1 minute ago, JayJayH said:

I don't support it. Denying entry to long-time LPRs with no criminal record or ties to terrorism is nothing short of ridiculous.

But it's both legal and has historical precedence. Only U.S. citizens have a right to enter the country.

LPR are protected by the constitution. They have been legally admitted and cannot be denied the privileges of their rights without DUE PROCESS.

 

1 minute ago, JayJayH said:

 

Hard to gauge support, but it's probably somewhere around 50% - Whether it will be judged as good or bad policy later will depend largely on what happens next.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/will-trumps-refugee-ban-have-public-support/

 

Likely, 90 days will go by, the Trump Administration will say "we've got better vetting procedures in place", moratorium lifted, and this will be a side note in American history while Trump gets to say he fulfilled his promise of 'banning Muslims' until we can "figure out what the hell is going on."

 

Trump's hardcore supporters make up probably around 25% of voters. He then has about 25% lukewarm support from people who consider the alternative worse, and people who really despise him, but just want to give the Democrats in their current state the middle finger.

 

It's not worded that way. Legally, it's actually worded really slick.

 

They're stopping refugee admissions from certain countries, but making exceptions for persecuted religious minorities (which in the Middle East would be predominately Christians and Yazidis). That's not faith based discrimination per se - It's admitting refugees who belong to a persecuted and marginalized minority (those words are usually music in the ears of leftists).

I know how it's worded and there is nothing slick about it. The mentioning of religion, makes it about faith. Did they attempt to disguise it? Yes, poorly so IMHO. 

[JayJayH 546]

10 minutes ago, Suss&Camm said:

LPR are protected by the constitution. They have been legally admitted and cannot be denied the privileges of their rights without DUE PROCESS.

 

I know how it's worded and there is nothing slick about it. The mentioning of religion, makes it about faith. Did they attempt to disguise it? Yes, poorly so IMHO. 

Not by the constitution. But yes, LPRs have the right to have their case heard before an immigration judge. Which is why I'm quite certain LPRs will be allowed entry after either 1. a lawsuit, or 2. further clarification.

 

There seems to have been a lot of confusion on the matter. Most of what you hear in media immediately are rumors from Twitter.

Actual facts tend to be more bland and boring. As per the White House, LPRs are not banned.

 

"You will be allowed to re-enter the United States pending a routine rescreening," (whatever that means)

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-greencard-idUSKBN15C0KX

 

It's very slick wording. It gets around "Muslim ban" by prioritizing "persecuted minorities" - Most refugee programs seek to aid "persecuted minorities."

Edited January 29, 2017 by JayJayH