Immigration Ban

[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

I'm sorry, but you sanctioned this.

Thanks for blaming me personally for this, apparently you didn't read Zoogs post that was around the same time as yours? You don't get to blame ME personally for some of these decisions. I don't really care if you agree with that or not. To me you are personally trying to attack me and I'm simply not going to put up with that sh#t. Period........mod status be dammed.

If you feel like I am attacking you, then that is your own prerogative. However, it was known that Trump would attempt to take this sort of action throughout his entire campaign. You chose to vote for him, thereby sanctioning these actions.

I suppose that's another opinion........I'll some how figure out how to move on with my day.

 

[ColoNoCoHusker]

While this may be splitting hairs, this individual ( Tashfeen Malik )was not a refugee, but rather came over on a Visa. However, it does show, we do need to improve our vetting process. Yes, Americans were killed, so don't polish this turd as if there isn't real problems with the past vetting process, no matter if it is refugee based or Visa based.

Who immigrated to the US from Pakistan, married to the son of Pakistani immigrants. Pakistan - a country absent from the immigration ban. So how does that case justify Trump's ban?

Again, I am happy to look at improving our vetting procedures or actually improving them. However, the current ban would have had NO impact on this case nor the 9/11 attacks. These are the two examples the EO cites.

If we aren't going to address an actual problem, what are we doing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rizwan_Farook_and_Tashfeen_Malik

 

[Enhance]

However, I think by allowing even just one "refugee" (or immigrant of any sort into the country) that doesn't have the interest of the Constitution in their intentions is FAR more dangerous than a temporary-ban and improved-vetting process.

Can you clarify the bolded for me, please? Are you saying it's dangerous to let a refugee into the country who has no interest in upholding the laws of our Constitution?

(I'm not trying to be obstinate - I promise. I may just be reading your sentence incorrectly).

 

[TAKODA]

While this may be splitting hairs, this individual ( Tashfeen Malik )was not a refugee, but rather came over on a Visa. However, it does show, we do need to improve our vetting process. Yes, Americans were killed, so don't polish this turd as if there isn't real problems with the past vetting process, no matter if it is refugee based or Visa based.

Who immigrated to the US from Pakistan, married to the son of Pakistani immigrants. Pakistan - a country absent from the immigration ban. So how does that case justify Trump's ban?

Again, I am happy to look at improving our vetting procedures or actually improving them. However, the current ban would have had NO impact on this case nor the 9/11 attacks. These are the two examples the EO cites.

If we aren't going to address an actual problem, what are we doing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rizwan_Farook_and_Tashfeen_Malik

You and the press are using the word Ban!
Thanks for that Colo, so need I say more? Is there a reason I need to speak further on this. It points at a fault, a point of weakness. Maybe vetting him, would not have impacted 9/11. Maybe it will prevent another 9/11 in the future. OH WAIT, they were not on the list of countries who are risky.

We should do no more than we already are, it's all good.

Europe says hello!

 

[zoogs]

However, I think by allowing even just one "refugee" (or immigrant of any sort into the country) that doesn't have the interest of the Constitution in their intentions is FAR more dangerous than a temporary-ban and improved-vetting process.

Can you clarify the bolded for me, please? Are you saying it's dangerous to let a refugee into the country who has no interest in upholding the laws of our Constitution?
(I'm not trying to be obstinate - I promise. I may just be reading your sentence incorrectly).

The President of the United States does not have the interests of the Constitution in his intentions.

 

[ColoNoCoHusker]

Our borders need to be secured, but we also need to enforce the laws on the books. We don't do that now which has led to the problem being on such a large scale. I can stop an illegal alien on a traffic stop and there is nothing I can do about it and ICE won't help me. So I issue them a ticket for something like no driver's license, impound their vehicle and tell them to take a walk. So unless I stop a van load, truck load, etc with 20 or more illegal aliens in it ICE simply doesn't care. Well, that's a problem IMO and it needs addressed. If that means hiring more ICE agents then so be it. So increasing the border patrol and ICE agents which Trump has mentioned is a logical step. Building a "wall" may not help the problem. I have no idea, I know on some parts of the border illegal aliens can just walk across the border so it may help in those areas. That's a problem considering terrorists could/may come into the United States via Mexico.

So, I guess I have to ask, what would you like to see happen if you stop a person who you suspect is illegal?

ICE should come out to our location, take information from this individual to register them and then get them on the road to citizenship.

OK...I can handle that.

But, correct me if I'm wrong, but at this time, there isn't a road to citizenship that this person can be put on.

I know one side in the past few elections has talked about a fast track to citizenship and the other side ridiculed it and voted for the guy who talked about having a deportation force and deporting millions of people who are here illegal.

Nope, there isn't, but Trump has backed off of deporting everyone from what I understand. He's mainly talking about those that are criminals from what I've heard. Do we want those folks here? I personally don't, we've got enough criminals at this point.

I do recall something Trump or someone on his team stated that being in the US illegally is by definition a criminal act when they were out here campaigning. Not finding the link but there needs to a distinction of what constitutes "criminal". I do volunteer work that has illegal/undocumented aliens as a large part of the serviced contingency. In my experience, these are the people that we should want to keep in this country. They are typically (99/100) better contributors & law-abiders than people born here.

 

[BIGREDIOWAN]

Our borders need to be secured, but we also need to enforce the laws on the books. We don't do that now which has led to the problem being on such a large scale. I can stop an illegal alien on a traffic stop and there is nothing I can do about it and ICE won't help me. So I issue them a ticket for something like no driver's license, impound their vehicle and tell them to take a walk. So unless I stop a van load, truck load, etc with 20 or more illegal aliens in it ICE simply doesn't care. Well, that's a problem IMO and it needs addressed. If that means hiring more ICE agents then so be it. So increasing the border patrol and ICE agents which Trump has mentioned is a logical step. Building a "wall" may not help the problem. I have no idea, I know on some parts of the border illegal aliens can just walk across the border so it may help in those areas. That's a problem considering terrorists could/may come into the United States via Mexico.

So, I guess I have to ask, what would you like to see happen if you stop a person who you suspect is illegal?

ICE should come out to our location, take information from this individual to register them and then get them on the road to citizenship.

OK...I can handle that.

But, correct me if I'm wrong, but at this time, there isn't a road to citizenship that this person can be put on.

I know one side in the past few elections has talked about a fast track to citizenship and the other side ridiculed it and voted for the guy who talked about having a deportation force and deporting millions of people who are here illegal.

Nope, there isn't, but Trump has backed off of deporting everyone from what I understand. He's mainly talking about those that are criminals from what I've heard. Do we want those folks here? I personally don't, we've got enough criminals at this point.

I do recall something Trump or someone on his team stated that being in the US illegally is by definition a criminal act when they were out here campaigning. Not finding the link but there needs to a distinction of what constitutes "criminal". I do volunteer work that has illegal/undocumented aliens as a large part of the serviced contingency. In my experience, these are the people that we should want to keep in this country. They are typically (99/100) better contributors & law-abiders than people born here.

Oh I agree with you, just simply being here while illegal isn't enough for me to say they need to go. Give them a path, I'm sure most are willing to take it if you can get past the trust issues with those folks. That's one of the difficult parts. Now if they are someone who's been charged or convicted of another crime like say, drug dealing, then by all means. Get those folks out of here IMO.

 

[NM11046]

Can anyone enlighten me on whether or not in previous detentions/interviews a refuge/immigrant was asked specifically "what their feelings were on Obamas' America"? Seems odd to me that one of the questions being asked of these folks is what they think of Trumps leadership.

Seems cult-like, and knowing him as we do at this point, he doesn't exactly have a positive bias toward anyone who disagrees with him.

 

[ColoNoCoHusker]

While this may be splitting hairs, this individual ( Tashfeen Malik )was not a refugee, but rather came over on a Visa. However, it does show, we do need to improve our vetting process. Yes, Americans were killed, so don't polish this turd as if there isn't real problems with the past vetting process, no matter if it is refugee based or Visa based.

Who immigrated to the US from Pakistan, married to the son of Pakistani immigrants. Pakistan - a country absent from the immigration ban. So how does that case justify Trump's ban?

Again, I am happy to look at improving our vetting procedures or actually improving them. However, the current ban would have had NO impact on this case nor the 9/11 attacks. These are the two examples the EO cites.

If we aren't going to address an actual problem, what are we doing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rizwan_Farook_and_Tashfeen_Malik

You and the press are using the word Ban!
Thanks for that Colo, so need I say more? Is there a reason I need to speak further on this. It points at a fault, a point of weakness. Maybe vetting him, would not have impacted 9/11. Maybe it will prevent another 9/11 in the future. OH WAIT, they are not on the list of countries who are risky.

We should do no more than we already are, it's all good.

Europe says hello!

I am asking how the case you identified is related to this thread? Europe does not define our immigration policy(s), so again that has nothing to do with it other emoting.

As I have stated, I am all for improving our vetting process. Can you give an example how this does that? Also, how does this immigration ban improve or change the situation with Malik?

 

[TAKODA]

Colo, that is why I referenced 'splitting hairs', because I recognize refugee vetting is different than what I referenced.

It goes towards vetting as a whole, not banning refugees, but giving the current administration enough time to get their feet under them, (review; past and current processes) to understand where the weak links or spots are. Then from there, work towards the improvement of our vetting system.

 

[zoogs]

http://jezebel.com/woman-and-her-2-children-held-at-dulles-airport-for-20-1791762183

“They called the husband, he’s from Minnesota,” Abi explained to ABC, “They told him that you have to get your children because they’re U.S. citizens, but your wife we will deport to Africa — we’ll send her back to Africa today at 10 a.m. So if you don’t come by 10 a.m. we’ll deport her.”

In the meantime, the woman—thus far unnamed—was pressured to sign papers and told that her visa had been canceled. When she refused to sign, asking to wait until her husband arrived, immigration officers threatened that she would not be permitted to return to the United States. She was then told to sign her children’s paperwork so that they could accompany her back to Africa. Still, she demurred, emphasizing that she would do nothing until the family was reunited.

Based on Abi’s narrative, the officers grew increasingly aggressive at this point.

“They handcuffed her, even when she went to the bathroom,” he said.

Immigration then placed another call with the husband.

“They called her husband’s phone number, saying that we have your family here at the airport. You come and get your kids, otherwise all of them [will go] back to Africa.”

The temporary stay has allowed the family to reunite.

For now.

 

[BIGREDIOWAN]

Can anyone enlighten me on whether or not in previous detentions/interviews a refuge/immigrant was asked specifically "what their feelings were on Obamas' America"? Seems odd to me that one of the questions being asked of these folks is what they think of Trumps leadership.

Seems cult-like, and knowing him as we do at this point, he doesn't exactly have a positive bias toward anyone who disagrees with him.

I have no idea, but I personally don't like that question either. How is it relevant?

 

[BigRedBuster]

Our borders need to be secured, but we also need to enforce the laws on the books. We don't do that now which has led to the problem being on such a large scale. I can stop an illegal alien on a traffic stop and there is nothing I can do about it and ICE won't help me. So I issue them a ticket for something like no driver's license, impound their vehicle and tell them to take a walk. So unless I stop a van load, truck load, etc with 20 or more illegal aliens in it ICE simply doesn't care. Well, that's a problem IMO and it needs addressed. If that means hiring more ICE agents then so be it. So increasing the border patrol and ICE agents which Trump has mentioned is a logical step. Building a "wall" may not help the problem. I have no idea, I know on some parts of the border illegal aliens can just walk across the border so it may help in those areas. That's a problem considering terrorists could/may come into the United States via Mexico.

So, I guess I have to ask, what would you like to see happen if you stop a person who you suspect is illegal?

ICE should come out to our location, take information from this individual to register them and then get them on the road to citizenship.

OK...I can handle that.

But, correct me if I'm wrong, but at this time, there isn't a road to citizenship that this person can be put on.

I know one side in the past few elections has talked about a fast track to citizenship and the other side ridiculed it and voted for the guy who talked about having a deportation force and deporting millions of people who are here illegal.

Nope, there isn't, but Trump has backed off of deporting everyone from what I understand. He's mainly talking about those that are criminals from what I've heard. Do we want those folks here? I personally don't, we've got enough criminals at this point.

I do recall something Trump or someone on his team stated that being in the US illegally is by definition a criminal act when they were out here campaigning. Not finding the link but there needs to a distinction of what constitutes "criminal". I do volunteer work that has illegal/undocumented aliens as a large part of the serviced contingency. In my experience, these are the people that we should want to keep in this country. They are typically (99/100) better contributors & law-abiders than people born here.

Oh I agree with you, just simply being here while illegal isn't enough for me to say they need to go. Give them a path, I'm sure most are willing to take it if you can get past the trust issues with those folks. That's one of the difficult parts. Now if they are someone who's been charged or convicted of another crime like say, drug dealing, then by all means. Get those folks out of here IMO.

Can you point me to where Trump has ever talked about giving them a path to citizenship?

 

[zoogs]

Can anyone enlighten me on whether or not in previous detentions/interviews a refuge/immigrant was asked specifically "what their feelings were on Obamas' America"? Seems odd to me that one of the questions being asked of these folks is what they think of Trumps leadership.

Seems cult-like, and knowing him as we do at this point, he doesn't exactly have a positive bias toward anyone who disagrees with him.

I have no idea, but I personally don't like that question either. How is it relevant?

It seems downright fascist.

We are rapidly approaching a world in which fealty to the Executive is a requirement. All of us can choose to tolerate this, or not. We cannot be so dense so as not to recognize the erosion of liberty when we see it.

 

[Oade]

Can anyone enlighten me on whether or not in previous detentions/interviews a refuge/immigrant was asked specifically "what their feelings were on Obamas' America"? Seems odd to me that one of the questions being asked of these folks is what they think of Trumps leadership.

Seems cult-like, and knowing him as we do at this point, he doesn't exactly have a positive bias toward anyone who disagrees with him.

I have no idea, but I personally don't like that question either. How is it relevant?

It seems downright fascist.

We are rapidly approaching a world in which fealty to the Executive is a requirement. All of us can choose to tolerate this, or not. We cannot be so dense so as not to recognize the erosion of liberty when we see it.

The fact that there have been protests at these levels since November, without military/executive punishments for protesting, proves we are not even remotely close to a fascist level.