GM_Tood

Defend what? Are you including all those losers that voted for 3rd party candidate that must feel like sh#t.

Honestly, I feel like answering this will create issues and I hate that. That is why I use status update thing so much. Just jump in Teach. Everyone has an opinion, and not everyone will agree with it. But, I bet there are some that will.

Did I do it right?

I would say so, Tood, and I'm curious about where you stand. I don't believe this is what Trump is all about. However, I do think he recognizes how useful it is to him. And he has empowered people for whom this is core. The reasonable people in his administration are not, by comparison, the shot callers. "Total allegiance to the country" is not a normal call to action made by a President at his inauguration. Especially where allegiance to country plainly means allegiance to his administration. I am leaning a bit towards a mix of ultra/civic nationalism. America First, and not really concerned with what other countries think. Association of people who identify themselves as belonging to the nation, who have equal and shared political rights, and allegiance to similar political procedures...MAGA Edit: Might need to take this convo to the other thread

If we cannot put the safety of the United States first (for 90 days) so that the freedoms that we all celebrate can continue to be celebrated....I really don't know what else to say. The world has changed, and the gov't we elected to protect our safety and freedoms has to take measures to ensure our safety/freedom. Military members fight (take a vow) to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, not what is written on a plaque placed on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty. edit: i see BRI already addressed some of this as well...

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. I would agree with this. But it's also better to stop Trump from going down a totalitarian (I hate the term "Fascist" since everyone's a Fascist these days) path when he's taken a couple of steps rather than letting him get a mile down the road before standing against him. Would you consider him/agenda along the lines of ultra nationalism?

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.

If we cannot get accurate or any vetting information from these countries, or the process being followed to enter data is not 100% accurate, then I would say a review would be in order, no? Or is it up to the US to gather information on these foreign nationals? I guess you can then argue: Why can't these be fixed without putting a temp ban in? For that, I do not have an answer as I do not know the details behind the entirety of the Immigration/Refugee information gathering/databases/processes that goes into vetting.

Does anyone that knows Law think that the lawsuits being filed would overturn the POTUS' authority to do what he did based on the below? 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (f) (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President 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.

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. But why were those countries not on the list from the beginning? Those are the ones we actually do have a problem with right? If I have gangrene in my left foot, why would I start to fix the problem by cutting off my right leg? I would have to re-read the initial action taken when these countries were added. You make an excellent point as to why no other country was among those deemed 'Countries of Concern'. i will try to find out. EDIT: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-restrictions-visa-waiver-program Not sure why other than they did not meet the criteria per Sec of HS. Pursuant to the Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security had sixty days to determine whether additional countries or areas of concern should be subject to the travel or dual nationality restrictions under the Act. After careful consideration, and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security has determined that Libya, Somalia, and Yemen be included as countries of concern, specifically for individuals who have traveled to these countries since March 1, 2011. At this time, the restriction on Visa Waiver Program travel will not apply to dual nationals of these three countries. DHS continues to consult with the Department of State and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to develop further criteria to determine whether other countries would be added to this list.

Yeah, we'll see how this conversation/attacking goes.

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. 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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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... 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.

Fake News. Jesus people, do some research.

Those countries (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and UAE) have the infrastructure in place to allow them to identify and screen who is getting on their airplanes perhaps? You're reaching here. And you left Azerbaijan off the list. Maybe a little as that was my thought on a possible reason before I actually did a little homework on the subject. Trump didn't hand pick those 7 countries. The Executive Order contains this language: It says that it seeks “Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern.” It also says“I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order.” The Department of Homeland Security targeted these seven countries over the last years as countries of concern. In February 2016 “The Department of Homeland Security today announced that it is continuing its implementation of the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 with the addition of Libya, Somalia, and Yemen as three countries of concern, limiting Visa Waiver Program travel for certain individuals who have traveled to these countries.” It noted “the three additional countries designated today join Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Syria as countries subject to restrictions for Visa Waiver Program travel for certain individuals.” https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-administration-made-the-muslim-ban-possible-and-the-media-wont-tell-you/

No, you worded it correctly. As long as folks do their own homework on the Executive Order as it pertains to Temp ban vs. Perma ban. As far as getting Americans killed in your quote above, I am not really sure if this does any more harm than the past 'x' years of boots on the ground/bombing/drone strikes.

SIV holders should be exempt from this 'ban', IMO.

Those countries (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and UAE) have the infrastructure in place to allow them to identify and screen who is getting on their airplanes perhaps?

Mexico knows it's in a bad spot with no leverage.

Nice find there.