Immigration Ban

[Enhance]

Please delete.

 

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

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.

I have no problem with hispanic folks, they are hard workers and frankly do that job that United States citizens may not do, I grew up in a diverse area so I have several hispanic friends. Frankly some U.S. citizens would rather sit on their a$$, collect their welfare than go find a job, so giving these folks a path to citizenship makes sense IMO. I figured once Trump got in there he'd find out rather quickly it's impossible and extremely expensive to round up all illegal aliens and deport them from the country. On the job training unfortunately is part of the Trump presidency. That's going to hurt at times and he's going to screw up, problem is that's going to piss off a few people along the way. Find these folks, register them, give them a path to citizenship. Evan McMullin's immigration plan was something I wholeheartedly agreed with. https://www.evanmcmullin.com/immigration

As far as the "muslim ban" I don't agree with banning just muslim's. I have friends that are muslim's and they are good people. I do think we need to make sure we are doing our due diligence in a post 9/11 world to make sure folks coming from countries where terrorist cells operate and may have terrorist ties aren't part of such associations. You can't just say, "Oh, they're refugees and 10 year old children, let them in" I've seen video upon video of 10 year old boys being trained by ISIS to be murderers and killing full grown adult males in their training. They are desensitized killers and they'll kill you without thinking twice about it, that's reality, that's not make believe. Now, that's just one example, I realize not all of the children and folks coming here are terrorists or have that intent. No, I don't agree with some 5 or 6 year old girl being put into handcuffs IF that really happened. I've only seen folks with hands behind their backs in those photos, no actual photos of handcuffs at this point. Is it convenient that the 7 countries mentioned fall in line with who Trump has or has not done business with? Sure, but when those same 7 countries were identified by the Obama administration you're going to have a hard time convincing me that he picked those 7 countries to ban because of business connections.

My problem is Democrats having acknowledge a few things here:

1. President Obama banned folks coming from Iraq for 6 months in 2011. Some of those not allowed in had helped our military in some capacity. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/barack-obama-ban-refugees-did-iraq-iraqi-muslim-trump-jimmy-carter-iran-iranian-immigration/

2. President Clinton even spoke along similar lines all the way back in 1995 from what I understand and wanted to get aggressive with terrorist issues. I've just seen some stuff pop up here and there. I was 15 so I don't remember the speech, just seen some headlines pop up so I could off on this.

3. This ban is for 90 days, not eternity, that hasn't been admitted by democrats. You are acting like it's the end of the world. If we can make our vetting process better, we need to.

 

[BigRedBuster]

So....Trump campaigned on some pretty strong points that either you are fully on board with or you are pretty uncomfortable with. When he was elected, even the people close to him were going around to news stations and claiming..."well....that was campaign talk, he won't really do what he said he will do".

Well...here comes this immigration ban. When people raised a stink about it, all we heard then was..."Hey, he's doing what he said he was. We should praise him for keeping his promises."

NOW....his pose is trying to say..."well...this isn't a Muslim ban". Remember, he campaigned on flat out banning Muslim immigration. There is no way to argue he didn't say that on the campaign trail.

WTF???? Just flat out say it. Are we supposed to expect what he said on the campaign trail or not?

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[Enhance]

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.

Evidence or support, do I have to find a Facebook post or reddit image to back my opinion?

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2015/11/the-refugee-vetting-process-will-fail

http://www.npr.org/2015/11/17/456395388/paris-attacks-ignite-debate-over-u-s-refugee-policy

http://immigrationreform.com/2016/09/30/naturalization-errors-expose-vetting-problems/

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-syria-refugees-vetting-gap-20170125-story.html ---Read this one first.

Ask the European countries that have been having issues with immigrants/refugees from some of these 7 countries if you think there aren't issues.

As far as what you bolded, I was stating my opinion on Immigration as a whole.

It would appear there are some concerns and deficiencies in the vetting process - those were interesting reads.

However, we can improve our processes through well-conceived legislation. We can improve our national security by producing fair but strict immigration guidelines. What we can't do, and shouldn't do, is draft chaotic, confusing and in-part unconstitutional executive orders.

This is a disappointing path towards improved national security, particularly when we consider Landlord's point - the current vetting process has been 99.9% effective. I will admit letting one bad apple slip through is unacceptable, particularly if it costs someone their life, but I do think this is a poor way of trying to fix the .01% of an issue.

 

[NM11046]

I'm waiting for Mr Trump or his people to say, "it's not a true muslim ban, yes we called it that because it's complicated and we neededs a simple way to communicate it out to the (stupid) American people.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Cdog923]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Oade]

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.

Evidence or support, do I have to find a Facebook post or reddit image to back my opinion?

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2015/11/the-refugee-vetting-process-will-fail

http://www.npr.org/2015/11/17/456395388/paris-attacks-ignite-debate-over-u-s-refugee-policy

http://immigrationreform.com/2016/09/30/naturalization-errors-expose-vetting-problems/

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-syria-refugees-vetting-gap-20170125-story.html ---Read this one first.

Ask the European countries that have been having issues with immigrants/refugees from some of these 7 countries if you think there aren't issues.

As far as what you bolded, I was stating my opinion on Immigration as a whole.

It would appear there are some concerns and deficiencies in the vetting process - those were interesting reads.

However, we can improve our processes through well-conceived legislation. We can improve our national security by producing fair but strict immigration guidelines. What we can't do, and shouldn't do, is draft chaotic, confusing and in-part unconstitutional executive orders.

This is a disappointing path towards improved national security, particularly when we consider Landlord's point - the current vetting process has been 99.9% effective. I will admit letting one bad apple slip through is unacceptable, particularly if it costs someone their life, but I do think this is a poor way of trying to fix the .01% of an issue.

I agree about unconstitutional executive orders, it was my biggest complaint of the previous two Presidents as well.

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 to the constitution than a temporary-ban and improved-vetting process.

We all have the Freedom of Religion, so if a certain refugee or immigrant supports oppressing people for choosing a different faction of Islam (which is sort of the big part of the issue) or for social freedoms we have here in the US, then they should not be allowed in. If they do not support the laws of the Constitution fully, then they should go elsewhere.... And if even just one Terrorist slips through the cracks, like what looks to be the case in Canada this weekend, then it undermines everyone's freedoms.

 

[GM_Tood]

Your position is that because some countries in Europe have problems with those countries, the US has to BAN ALL travel & immigration for ANYONE associated with those countries until the US determines IF our vetting needs to be changed? This is your opinion despite the high success rate of this vetting?

Again, I am not saying it is perfect and by all means, lets look at improving our immigration vetting procedures. Nothing has been provided that indicates this type of ban is needed for improvement to take place. Nor is there any quantitative evidence the ban is needed to address an immediate or imminent threat.

Do we have to shut down the Treasury while the IRS implements changes to tax code? Do we have to shut down all police enforcement from a department while we investigate an officer? Do we close school districts while we review student achievement scores? Do we stop all interstate narcotics enforcement while the DEA reviews states legalizing marijuana?

The idea this ban is anything but racist policy is laughable given how few of the "bad element" have made it through...

I was just stating that there are issues with immigrants/refugees from these countries. I am saying, IMO, if there are issues to the Immigration/Refugee process please fix it. I don't think Trump is saying there is an imminent threat. He is banking another promise he made to those that elected him...and part of that vote was knowing that the Immigration ban was coming. And he knows that his platform is based on America First. Be proactive instead of reactive when it comes to the possibility of terrorism.

 

[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.

 

[zoogs]

What is it about any of the examples we've heard says "criminal" to anybody?