Immigration Ban

[Bigred_inSD]

How many of the people who support this ban also gladly yelled #alllivesmatter no more than 6 months ago?

 

[VectorVictor]

Here's an interesting and chilling take on the Immigration Ban and the reports (as posters already commented previously) that DHS officials were not respecting the court orders that prevented those bans from taking place:

https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/trial-balloon-for-a-coup-e024990891d5#.rvs7gzhlh

...the administration is testing the extent to which the DHS (and other executive agencies) can act and ignore orders from the other branches of government. This is as serious as it can possibly get: all of the arguments about whether order X or Y is unconstitutional mean nothing if elements of the government are executing them and the courts are being ignored.

Yesterday was the trial balloon for a coup d’état against the United States. It gave them useful information.

The case made here is not too far fetched, especially when one takes into account how many Federal vacancies and dismissals have occurred. And this, coupled with the theory that Trump is using this action as a way to find out who is loyal to the United States or the Trump Administration (with the explicit purpose of replacing the former with more of the latter) does not bode well for our country.

Also, going back to the 'golden showers' dossier...

On Wednesday, Reuters reported (in great detail) how 19.5% of Rosneft, Russia’s state oil company, has been sold to parties unknown. This was done through a dizzying array of shell companies, so that the most that can be said with certainty now is that the money “paying” for it was originally loaned out to the shell layers by VTB (the government’s official bank), even though it’s highly unclear who, if anyone, would be paying that loan back; and the recipients have been traced as far as some Cayman Islands shell companies.

Why is this interesting? Because the much-maligned Steele Dossier (the one with the golden showers in it) included the statement that Putin had offered Trump 19% of Rosneft if he became president and removed sanctions. The reason this is so interesting is that the dossier said this in July, and the sale didn’t happen until early December. And 19.5% sounds an awful lot like “19% plus a brokerage commission.”

Yeah...interesting indeed.

It's amazing how the pro-Trump folks seem to have scurried away from the light of this and other threads as of late. :-|

What's the point in even commenting at this point? There's no way folks are really going to listen to anything. Everyone is so worked up it's just not worth it to me.

I'd love to listen to someone explain their support for an administration that thinks putting 5 year olds in handcuffs at the airport is a good idea.

See..........it's assumed I'm okay with that, even though I never said that at any point, just because I voted for Trump. #assumptions

He campaigned on doing this. You must've been okay with it enough to vote for him.

Qui tacet consentire videtur.

A silence procedure or tacit acceptance procedure (French: procédure d'approbation tacite; Latin: qui tacet consentire videtur, "he who is silent is taken to agree", "silence implies/means consent") is a way of formally adopting texts, often, but not exclusively in international political context.

In short, your silence condones the actions taking place. You can't claim ignorance (willful or otherwise) of what has transpired, so if you're silent, you're giving consent.

 

[BIGREDIOWAN]

Here's an interesting and chilling take on the Immigration Ban and the reports (as posters already commented previously) that DHS officials were not respecting the court orders that prevented those bans from taking place:

https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/trial-balloon-for-a-coup-e024990891d5#.rvs7gzhlh

...the administration is testing the extent to which the DHS (and other executive agencies) can act and ignore orders from the other branches of government. This is as serious as it can possibly get: all of the arguments about whether order X or Y is unconstitutional mean nothing if elements of the government are executing them and the courts are being ignored.

Yesterday was the trial balloon for a coup d’état against the United States. It gave them useful information.

The case made here is not too far fetched, especially when one takes into account how many Federal vacancies and dismissals have occurred. And this, coupled with the theory that Trump is using this action as a way to find out who is loyal to the United States or the Trump Administration (with the explicit purpose of replacing the former with more of the latter) does not bode well for our country.

Also, going back to the 'golden showers' dossier...

On Wednesday, Reuters reported (in great detail) how 19.5% of Rosneft, Russia’s state oil company, has been sold to parties unknown. This was done through a dizzying array of shell companies, so that the most that can be said with certainty now is that the money “paying” for it was originally loaned out to the shell layers by VTB (the government’s official bank), even though it’s highly unclear who, if anyone, would be paying that loan back; and the recipients have been traced as far as some Cayman Islands shell companies.

Why is this interesting? Because the much-maligned Steele Dossier (the one with the golden showers in it) included the statement that Putin had offered Trump 19% of Rosneft if he became president and removed sanctions. The reason this is so interesting is that the dossier said this in July, and the sale didn’t happen until early December. And 19.5% sounds an awful lot like “19% plus a brokerage commission.”

Yeah...interesting indeed.

It's amazing how the pro-Trump folks seem to have scurried away from the light of this and other threads as of late. :-|

What's the point in even commenting at this point? There's no way folks are really going to listen to anything. Everyone is so worked up it's just not worth it to me.

I'd love to listen to someone explain their support for an administration that thinks putting 5 year olds in handcuffs at the airport is a good idea.

See..........it's assumed I'm okay with that, even though I never said that at any point, just because I voted for Trump. #assumptions

He campaigned on doing this. You must've been okay with it enough to vote for him.

Yep, I'm okay with banning all folks from coming into the U.S. #merica #ifyouwerentbornintheUSgetout *sarcasm*

 

[Landlord]

See..........it's assumed I'm okay with that, even though I never said that at any point, just because I voted for Trump. #assumptions

The only thing you've said thus far is, "why even bother commenting?" Taking that and then realizing that you haven't said that this is ethically wrong, morally wrong, outrageous, sad, preposterous, or whatever, gives people a fair assumption imo, whether it's a right or a wrong one.

 

[ZRod]

Here's an interesting and chilling take on the Immigration Ban and the reports (as posters already commented previously) that DHS officials were not respecting the court orders that prevented those bans from taking place:

https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/trial-balloon-for-a-coup-e024990891d5#.rvs7gzhlh

...the administration is testing the extent to which the DHS (and other executive agencies) can act and ignore orders from the other branches of government. This is as serious as it can possibly get: all of the arguments about whether order X or Y is unconstitutional mean nothing if elements of the government are executing them and the courts are being ignored.

Yesterday was the trial balloon for a coup d’état against the United States. It gave them useful information.

The case made here is not too far fetched, especially when one takes into account how many Federal vacancies and dismissals have occurred. And this, coupled with the theory that Trump is using this action as a way to find out who is loyal to the United States or the Trump Administration (with the explicit purpose of replacing the former with more of the latter) does not bode well for our country.

Also, going back to the 'golden showers' dossier...

On Wednesday, Reuters reported (in great detail) how 19.5% of Rosneft, Russia’s state oil company, has been sold to parties unknown. This was done through a dizzying array of shell companies, so that the most that can be said with certainty now is that the money “paying” for it was originally loaned out to the shell layers by VTB (the government’s official bank), even though it’s highly unclear who, if anyone, would be paying that loan back; and the recipients have been traced as far as some Cayman Islands shell companies.

Why is this interesting? Because the much-maligned Steele Dossier (the one with the golden showers in it) included the statement that Putin had offered Trump 19% of Rosneft if he became president and removed sanctions. The reason this is so interesting is that the dossier said this in July, and the sale didn’t happen until early December. And 19.5% sounds an awful lot like “19% plus a brokerage commission.”

Yeah...interesting indeed.

It's amazing how the pro-Trump folks seem to have scurried away from the light of this and other threads as of late. :-|

What's the point in even commenting at this point? There's no way folks are really going to listen to anything. Everyone is so worked up it's just not worth it to me.

I for one would like a dissenting opinion if only to check my own. Are you in agreement with the ban, and the wall BRI?

 

[ZRod]

I think this poorly thought out ban order was the beginning of us seeing Trump weaving his own financial interests into policy. It just so happens they decide to ban immigrants from 7 nations from which 0 deaths on American soil have come, at the same time as NOT implementing bans for countries with other countries where Trump just so HAPPENS to have business? Totally above board, right?

Fake News. Jesus people, do some research.

What part of that is fake?

 

[GM_Tood]

Here's an interesting and chilling take on the Immigration Ban and the reports (as posters already commented previously) that DHS officials were not respecting the court orders that prevented those bans from taking place:

https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/trial-balloon-for-a-coup-e024990891d5#.rvs7gzhlh

...the administration is testing the extent to which the DHS (and other executive agencies) can act and ignore orders from the other branches of government. This is as serious as it can possibly get: all of the arguments about whether order X or Y is unconstitutional mean nothing if elements of the government are executing them and the courts are being ignored.

Yesterday was the trial balloon for a coup d’état against the United States. It gave them useful information.

The case made here is not too far fetched, especially when one takes into account how many Federal vacancies and dismissals have occurred. And this, coupled with the theory that Trump is using this action as a way to find out who is loyal to the United States or the Trump Administration (with the explicit purpose of replacing the former with more of the latter) does not bode well for our country.

Also, going back to the 'golden showers' dossier...

On Wednesday, Reuters reported (in great detail) how 19.5% of Rosneft, Russia’s state oil company, has been sold to parties unknown. This was done through a dizzying array of shell companies, so that the most that can be said with certainty now is that the money “paying” for it was originally loaned out to the shell layers by VTB (the government’s official bank), even though it’s highly unclear who, if anyone, would be paying that loan back; and the recipients have been traced as far as some Cayman Islands shell companies.

Why is this interesting? Because the much-maligned Steele Dossier (the one with the golden showers in it) included the statement that Putin had offered Trump 19% of Rosneft if he became president and removed sanctions. The reason this is so interesting is that the dossier said this in July, and the sale didn’t happen until early December. And 19.5% sounds an awful lot like “19% plus a brokerage commission.”

Yeah...interesting indeed.

It's amazing how the pro-Trump folks seem to have scurried away from the light of this and other threads as of late. :-|

What's the point in even commenting at this point? There's no way folks are really going to listen to anything. Everyone is so worked up it's just not worth it to me.

I for one would like a dissenting opinion if only to check my own. Are you in agreement with the ban, and the wall BRI?

I'll throw mine out there.

I am for the temporary Immigration Ban. I do not think it is a "Muslim Ban"...if it was then why not just shut down all countries listed as having majority Muslim population? I am hopeful that the temporary ban will allow the Feds to revamp/fix/address/whatever the vetting processes that happen for those from the 7 countries (and possibly all countries) before they enter our country legally. I do not think it was implemented fairly. The whole Green Card fiasco was/is a mess and had to be fixed ASAP.

There is an argument that Trump needed to slam this EO in as to not allow bad guys from saying, "well, the US is going to put this in effect in two weeks lets go now." Weak argument, yes.

If this turns into more than a temp ban, then I would need to hear some very good justification for it before I would even think to support the extension. I am not a blind follower to Trump and his policies.

There's a few problems I have with immigration at large:

1. Our path to citizenship sucks and it's way too hard for good people to enter the country legally.

2. Our ability to prevent bad immigration sucks and it's way too easy for bad people to enter the country illegally.

3. People who attempt to solve problem #1 by exacerbating #2 are part of the problem.

4. People who don't want to solve #1 until #2 is solved are part of the problem.

I remember thinking in 2011/2012 that then President Obama could redeem himself in the upcoming election by pushing an issue that was very ripe in my opinion: solving #1 and #2 with a broad immigration reform. He (nor did Romney) talk about immigration.

I have been hoping (without real justification) that Trump will solve #1 and #2 by pushing broad immigration reform through congress. I am becoming less hopeful now that it seems like he can just solve #2 and not even needing to address #1 via compromise.

 

[GM_Tood]

I think this poorly thought out ban order was the beginning of us seeing Trump weaving his own financial interests into policy. It just so happens they decide to ban immigrants from 7 nations from which 0 deaths on American soil have come, at the same time as NOT implementing bans for countries with other countries where Trump just so HAPPENS to have business? Totally above board, right?

Fake News. Jesus people, do some research.

What part of that is fake?

That this has anything to do with Trump's financial interests. And that these 7 countries were just magically picked out of a hat based on those interests.

 

[ZRod]

What about the vetting process needed to be fixed from those countries? What led you to the conclusion that there was something wrong?

 

[ZRod]

I think this poorly thought out ban order was the beginning of us seeing Trump weaving his own financial interests into policy. It just so happens they decide to ban immigrants from 7 nations from which 0 deaths on American soil have come, at the same time as NOT implementing bans for countries with other countries where Trump just so HAPPENS to have business? Totally above board, right?

Fake News. Jesus people, do some research.

What part of that is fake?

That this has anything to do with Trump's financial interests. And that these 7 countries were just magically picked out of a hat based on those interests.

Then why were three (possibly four if you want to include Pakistan) countries that produced terrorists who have killed on US soil been left of the list?

 

[Landlord]

First of all, it's not temporary for Syria, the country whose citizens need our help more than anyone.

I do not think it is a "Muslim Ban"...if it was then why not just shut down all countries listed as having majority Muslim population?

Because that would be illegal, so they couched it in distracting rhetoric. Guilliani even admitted as such on Fox News, saying Trump wanted a muslim ban and came to Rudy to ask, "How can we make this legal?" Easy. By finding some other excuse to ban entry from these Middle Eastern countries.

I am hopeful that the temporary ban will allow the Feds to revamp/fix/address/whatever the vetting processes that happen for those from the 7 countries (and possibly all countries) before they enter our country legally.

Would you care to offer any kind of evidence or support of ANY kind whatsoever that the vetting process needs to be revamped, fixed, addressed, or whatever? 800,000 refugees here since 9/11 - not a one has killed an American citizen, and 3 have been charged with terrorism-related crimes. That's 99.99999% effective. So many people are saying this is a a good idea until we can solve the problem with our vetting - the question is, what problem? There doesn't seem to be one that exists, and though I and others have countless times posted the screening process graphics from the White House, nobody has ever cared to respond.

There's a few problems I have with immigration at large:

1. Our path to citizenship sucks and it's way too hard for good people to enter the country legally.
2. Our ability to prevent bad immigration sucks and it's way too easy for bad people to enter the country illegally.
3. People who attempt to solve problem #1 by exacerbating #2 are part of the problem.
4. People who don't want to solve #1 until #2 is solved are part of the problem.

I remember thinking in 2011/2012 that then President Obama could redeem himself in the upcoming election by pushing an issue that was very ripe in my opinion: solving #1 and #2 with a broad immigration reform. He (nor did Romney) talk about immigration.

re: the bolded, what do these have anything to do with Trump's refugee ban? It is easy for bad people to enter our country, period. Forget illegally. They can get here on tourist visas with tremendous ease. They're not trying to pose as refugees or immigrate - that's way more work and way more difficult. Further, Obama actually did quite a bit. I see a lot of conservatives on Facebook referencing his Iraq refugee halt in 2011, which was in response to an actual terrorist threat in the states, and resulted in a revamp of our now extremely thorough and effective vetting procedures.

 

[Landlord]

I think this poorly thought out ban order was the beginning of us seeing Trump weaving his own financial interests into policy. It just so happens they decide to ban immigrants from 7 nations from which 0 deaths on American soil have come, at the same time as NOT implementing bans for countries with other countries where Trump just so HAPPENS to have business? Totally above board, right?

Fake News. Jesus people, do some research.

What part of that is fake?

That this has anything to do with Trump's financial interests. And that these 7 countries were just magically picked out of a hat based on those interests.

First of all, that part of his post has nothing to do with the news. No news organizations are making a fact claim about Trump's motivation being related to his business. What the news has done is point out the facts relating to Trump's business dealings in the Middle East. They have not offered conclusions based on those facts. What dudeguyy did was state an opinion based on looking at the facts presented, which are true.

You're revealing your suggestibility by spouting off about fake news. I'd bet the house that you never spent any time talking about fake news before 2016, and now you've adopted one of Donald Trump's main distraction talking points. You're far better than this Tood. You're not thinking for yourself on this one.

 

[GM_Tood]

I think this poorly thought out ban order was the beginning of us seeing Trump weaving his own financial interests into policy. It just so happens they decide to ban immigrants from 7 nations from which 0 deaths on American soil have come, at the same time as NOT implementing bans for countries with other countries where Trump just so HAPPENS to have business? Totally above board, right?

Fake News. Jesus people, do some research.

What part of that is fake?

That this has anything to do with Trump's financial interests. And that these 7 countries were just magically picked out of a hat based on those interests.

Then why were three (possibly four if you want to include Pakistan) countries that produced terrorists who have killed on US soil been left of the list?

Because in order to add additional Countries to those listed as 'Countries of Concern' it would have taken a longer process (Congress)to get this EO done. And if I remember hearing on CNN interview yesterday, that the possibility of adding countries is still a possibility.

 

[GM_Tood]

I think this poorly thought out ban order was the beginning of us seeing Trump weaving his own financial interests into policy. It just so happens they decide to ban immigrants from 7 nations from which 0 deaths on American soil have come, at the same time as NOT implementing bans for countries with other countries where Trump just so HAPPENS to have business? Totally above board, right?

Fake News. Jesus people, do some research.

What part of that is fake?

That this has anything to do with Trump's financial interests. And that these 7 countries were just magically picked out of a hat based on those interests.

First of all, that part of his post has nothing to do with the news. No news organizations are making a fact claim about Trump's motivation being related to his business. What the news has done is point out the facts relating to Trump's business dealings in the Middle East. They have not offered conclusions based on those facts. What dudeguyy did was state an opinion based on looking at the facts presented, which are true.

You're revealing your suggestibility by spouting off about fake news. I'd bet the house that you never spent any time talking about fake news before 2016, and now you've adopted one of Donald Trump's main distraction talking points. You're far better than this Tood. You're not thinking for yourself on this one.

Yes, there are news organizations that are pressing the issue. I try to watch multiple news stations and there have been two in particular that have. I will try to find the interview from last night from CNN. I will put a placeholder here.

 

[QMany]

I do not think it is a "Muslim Ban"...if it was then why not just shut down all countries listed as having majority Muslim population?

Because that would be illegal, so they couched it in distracting rhetoric. Guilliani even admitted as such on Fox News, saying Trump wanted a muslim ban and came to Rudy to ask, "How can we make this legal?" Easy. By finding some other excuse to ban entry from these Middle Eastern countries.

Trump specifically campaigned on a Muslim Ban:

December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population.

(That press release is still on his website titled DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON PREVENTING MUSLIM IMMIGRATION)

Then, as Landlord explained, Guiliani went on Fox and straight-up admitted a Muslim Ban was the original intent.


To deny this is a "Muslim Ban" is just willful ignorance.