White House Announces New Muslim Ban

[Atreus21]

OP is clearly baiting the community & trolling.

Nothing within the new immigration bill, has any wording on religion, or even race. Just "People" from those Nation-States.

A Muslim ban would include 44 Nation-States. Clearly the OP has an agenda, or doesn't understand the intent of the enforcement of our laws.

Welcome to the forum bud. Tread lightly. Tolerant progressives live here.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Welcome to the forum bud. Tread lightly. Tolerant progressives live here.

The oppression that you live under in this forum must be terrible for you.

 

[Atreus21]

The oppression that you live under in this forum must be terrible for you.

Oh it's just awful. I cry myself to sleep when it gets really bad.

 

[pcgeek11]

Yes it's a stupid executive order that really does nothing to really enhance national security. I am sure this is what you were trying to say right?

As usual you are completely wrong again... Don't stop trying though you'll get it eventually.

 

[agent00f]

As usual you are completely wrong again... Don't stop trying though you'll get it eventually.

I'm sure one of these days the libtards will get the value of putting lower status ethnics in their place.

 

[pcgeek11]

Father of slain soldier who criticized Trump has travel rights under review. I didn't think Pakistan was on the "list". Possible retaliation?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-khan-idUSKBN16D2MI

Also, speaking of immigrants..lol, Ben Carson let out a doozy today..

http://www.vox.com/identities/2017/3/6/14835034/ben-carson-slaves-immigrants



In a twisted sense, he was right. Only if "pursue prosperity and happiness in this land" means hoping that someday slavery is abolished. It's hardly news that Ben Carson's grain doesn't go all the way to the top of the pyramid. I would not be surprised if he thinks that the "harsh conditions" that African slaves had to endure were something like having the inside cabins on the ship, with no balconies... And the buffet closed down at 11:00 pm.

After reading the article sounds a little fishy to me as he is a US Citizen and has a passport there is nothing to stop him from traveling to Toronto unless we are missing something that was left out of the article.

"Khizr Khan, an American citizen born in Pakistan, said he had not been given a reason as to why his travel privileges were being reviewed. He did not say what kind of review he was subject to, which U.S. agency ordered it or who told him of the change."

Why didn't he say who told him of the change.
He is a citizen and allowed to travel freely.
Sounds like BS to me.

" U.S. Customs & Border Protection said it does not contact travelers in advance of their travel out of the United States, according to an official who said any U.S. citizen with a passport may travel out of the country. CBP would not comment specifically on the Khan case, citing privacy protections.

Jeff Khurgel, an attorney at the Khurgel Immigration Law Firm in Irvine, California, said there is no valid reason under U.S. immigration law that would keep naturalized U.S. citizens from having the same travel rights and privileges as a natural born U.S. citizen.

"Theoretically, if the government had any criminal information on any U.S. citizen they have a right to question them under law, but it would be very rare to revoke their travel privileges unless they have been charged with a crime," Khurgel said. "

 

[pcgeek11]

So you are saying this is a failed campaign promise by the president. He said he would ban Muslims. What will his followers think?

That isn't what he said.

 

[Paratus]

I see, you attack people because they are new and try to force them to your will..?

Deal with the topic, stop attacking the messenger. Seems like you have some serious anger issues to work out. Or, you could just grow up and stop spouting off like some internet tough guy.

Citizenship is not something to throw around lightly, it is what give us our freedoms. You want to give it away freely.... to all. But again (liberal thinker) Citizen's rights are not yours to give, it is what is protected for us, in the Constitution.

Non-citizens are not protected by the Constitution. But USA will help make any Country a Democracy so refugees have their own Country for the People.

They absolutely are. Or did you miss my previous post.

 

[pcgeek11]

i think the people of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen should ban americans from entering their countries, that'll show em.

Like anyone with brains wants to go there.

 

[Paratus]

That isn't what he said.

Oh what did you hear?

He rarely finishes a sentence and let's the listener fill in the blanks.

 

[HomerJS]

Excuse you..?

Either refute/rebuttal the topic, or take your little kid name calling elsewhere. Or explain why you don't care about jihadist entering the our Country. Or why you don't want a secure Country.

It is not a Political issue, it is one of national security and protection given to all CITIZENS by the Constitution. A persons opinion of our laws does not matter, so why do you think your Opinion of the Constitution matters. Liberal views dont change what is written, liberal thinkers only worry about themselves & have "feeling for relatives" into their law making, not the general populace.

So why are you defending non-citizens... or is it just more young kids President bashing because they never went to school to understand the role of government..?

Is that why u quoted me, because you don't like Citizenship, or the USA? And feel our borders are free for everyone..? How is a terror ban not a good thing, explain yourself.

Explain to us all, how you don't care about your Citizenry.

I'll give it a go. I worry about terrorism period. Guess how many jihadist refugees have killed people in this country? The answer is zero. The current vetting process which takes up to 18 months has done a pretty good job weeding out dangerous refugees.

The terrorism problem in this country are right wing militia/white supremicists and radicalized Islamic citizens.

I would rather attack the problem where the problem exists.

Too bad Trump is only concerned about terrorism committed by brown people.

 

[pcgeek11]

Oh what did you hear?

He rarely finishes a sentence and let's the listener fill in the blanks.

I have never heard him say that he is going to ban all Muslims. I have heard him say he was going to stop "Radical Islamist and Radical Muslims" from entering the country. As we all know all Muslims are not radical Islamist / Muslims.

You made the claim that he said that he would ban all Musims. ( To split a hair, you didn't actually say the word "all". It was implied in your statement: "He said he would ban Muslims." )

Give us a verifiable source. The onus is on you to prove your claim.

 

[pcgeek11]

I'll give it a go. I worry about terrorism period. Guess how many jihadist refugees have killed people in this country? The answer is zero. The current vetting process which takes up to 18 months has done a pretty good job weeding out dangerous refugees.

The terrorism problem in this country are right wing militia/white supremicists and radicalized Islamic citizens.

I would rather attack the problem where the problem exists.

Too bad Trump is only concerned about terrorism committed by brown people.

Well actually no it isn't Zero. I remember on 09/11 some radicals killed quite a few people here in this country.

 

[Paratus]

I have never heard him say that he is going to ban all Muslims. I have heard him say he was going to stop "Radical Islamist and Radical Muslims" from entering the country. As we all know all Muslims are not radical Islamist / Muslims.

You made the claim that he said that he would ban all Musims. ( To split a hair, you didn't actually say the word "all". It was implied in your statement: "He said he would ban Muslims." )

Give us a verifiable source. The onus is on you to prove your claim.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/

"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," a campaign press release said.

Video
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...complete-ban-on-muslims-entering-the-us-video

 

[Paratus]

Well actually no it isn't Zero. I remember on 09/11 some radicals killed quite a few people here in this country.

Not a single one of the 9/11 hijackers came from the banned countries. Not a single hijacker was a refugee.

I'll repeat. Not a single one.....

So why are these the countries that need to be banned and what was wrong with our current vetting process?

Finally how does this ban equal a promise of a "complete shutdown" of Muslims entering the country?

How does this ban on already vetted refugees meet your more realistic goal of stopping radical
Islamists from entering the country?

(Did you get the part about not a single one?)

 

[agent00f]

Not a single one of the 9/11 hijackers came from the banned countries. Not a single hijacker was a refugee.

I'll repeat. Not a single one.....

So why are these the countries that need to be banned and what was wrong with our current vetting process?

Finally how does this ban equal a promise of a "complete shutdown" of Muslims entering the country?

How does this ban on already vetted refugees meet your more realistic goal of stopping radical
Islamists from entering the country?

(Did you get the part about not a single one?)

They is same skin color, duh.

 

[woolfe9998]

My view of Travel Ban 2.0 is basically the same as my view of 1.0. It doesn't really do all that much, and hence it doesn't bother me terribly. I even agree that the term "Muslim Ban" is an overreach. This new order stops issuance of new visas from 6 countries for 90 days. So long as it doesn't get extended, the effect is not that dramatic, especially in the longer term.

I do understand the real concern about a slippery slope here. The fact that Trump stated his original intent for a total Muslim ban tends to increase the probability of this order being extended in time and/or geography. Yet my gut tells me it won't get extended. Trump won't want the controversy. His entire intent with this whole exercise is to throw some opiates to his mass of supporters, especially the ones who aren't that wild about Muslims. To be sure, this one is actually more like Tylenol than opiates, and therein lies the rub.

The policy is pointless. The security gain will be beneath marginal. Picayune. We've never been attacked by people from any of those countries. There are also two DHS reports which have been leaked. The first says that country of origin is a poor predictor of terrorism. The second says that foreign born terrorists pretty much always radicalize years after they get here, which means improving vetting is pointless. And what is this "90 day" crap? Now that it's been a month since the first order, shouldn't they only need 60 days now? "90 days" is an arbitrary number cloaking a policy which is hollow at its core. A purely political gesture.

The only real effect of it is probably to piss off some Muslims. You know, those ones who radicalize after they get here? On the whole, it's probably a small negative to our security.

You know, if Trump wants improved vetting, he should have just said he wants to seriously review our vetting with an eye toward strengthening it. That would have been a sensible approach. Sensible, but boring. But this is Donald Trump. He wants to be a Great Leader. And Great Leaders require Bold Actions. Like building a wall. A big wall.

I must admit to being amused to watch Trump come thundering in with his Bold Action, and it's a pale imitation of what he promised his followers. Then he has to weaken it again to where it's pretty much pitiful as a counter-terrorism tool. The sad part is, most of his people will probably be pacified by it.

Anyway, I suggest downplaying it rather than getting in a tizzy about it. The more conservatives don’t hear liberals getting pissed about it, the more they'll think they didn't get much for their end of the bargain. Especially since pissing off liberals is a big part of the bargain for them.

 

[FIVR]

The reason the ban is a problem isn't because its stated purpose is to "ban muslims"... although that would be a despicable and bigoted reason to ban people... it's because the stated reason for its existence is total BS. The countries on the list are not a source of "terrorists" or a danger to the US. In fact, the ban specifically goes out of its way to exempt every single country that has been a source of terror attacks and extremism in the US (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, Israel).



Good thing that any terrorist in Israel or Egypt or Saudi Arabia that would like to travel to the US to teach us a lesson about who really is dangerous can still easily make it here. Oh and I'm sure they will definitely not succeed in lying to customs about their religion... because we all know that's impossible. You can easily tell the muslims from the christians, right?


The real purpose of this ban is to 1) get rid of brown people in the US by deporting them 2) Make sure zero scary brown people are allowed in ever again and 3)To make sure every brown person in any other country knows we don't like them or their religion and we will bomb them and take their oil later after we deport them ... and finally, through these means, to 4) cause attacks on the US


If the US is attacked by "islamic extremists" Trump thinks he will get what GWB got: Carte blanche to do whatever he wants and to crush all domestic dissent. Trump wants to be dictator, and he is going to use Putin's Russian apartment bombings as a template for his own assumption of power. Unfortunately he doesn't have the FSB and the CIA doesn't like him. The FBI is just too stupid to pull off false flag ops and even if it could, it would leak the results. So he has to wing it, to provoke it...and his idea (or Bannon's) is to do what our govt (and trump) has been saying is SO EASY and SO COMMON: Get the muslims to attack. I don't even think Trump has a problem with muslims or thinks they are dangerous... I think he sees them as an easy scapegoat and target for provocation to consolidate his power. He saw what amazing adoration and powers Bush got just by being attacked, and he wants the same powers and adoration.

 

[khon]

This ban is not an effective way to prevent terrorism, in fact it'll probably increase terrorism, but that is really besides the point anyway. The only purpose for this ban is to send a message, and that message is simple: "Muslims are not welcome in the US".

Trump would have preferred to make the ban specific for muslims, as he has made clear multiple times, but he couldn't do so legally, so he found this workaround instead. The ban looks legal to me now, morally reprehensible and totally ineffective at it's stated goal, but it is legal.

 

[trenchfoot]

Trump has already reaped the benefits of this Ban the Muslims ploy of his. He has further solidified the support from the folks who contributed to his win.

That's all he wanted from this scam of his. Nothing more, nothing less, And if thousands upon thousands of innocents have been negatively affected by this "clever" little scheme of his, well awwww, too bad, so sad.

 

[compuwiz1]

Temporary ban. I see it as a pause, to get time to get policy on vetting in place. Our country retains the right to determine who comes in. How is that so hard for some people to understand? I'm glad we have a leader who is not going to allow our country to become like Germany or the UK. Once they're in, it's difficult to change course. Do you want to see major street traffic come to a halt, because a thousand people decided that putting their butts in the air, in prayer, was more important than you getting to your office?

Funny how liberals like to preach their separation of church and state bullshit, denounce religion, but yet come to the aid of religious extremists, who want to kill us, every time. You either hate religion, or you don't. Atheists are a funny lot. They claim to believe in no deities, yet will spend countless hours fighting against something they do not believe exists. How do you explain that shit? Most of them claim to be liberals, but will come to the defense of a Muslim, in a heartbeat, but not a Christian. How do you explain that shit?

 

[pcgeek11]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/



Video
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...complete-ban-on-muslims-entering-the-us-video

That is not a "Ban of Muslims". What he said was a temporary halt to Muslim immigration " until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on "

I guess you can interpret it however you like. I interpreted it as like the stoppage he signed onto yesterday on those 6 countries. Which I also do not have an issue with.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Either it's targeting Muslims or its not. Which is it

 

[compuwiz1]

Either it's targeting Muslims or its not. Which is it

What if it was; Either it's targeting Christians or its not. Which is it. Would you care as much?

 

[sdifox]

Temporary ban. I see it as a pause, to get time to get policy on vetting in place. Our country retains the right to determine who comes in. How is that so hard for some people to understand? I'm glad we have a leader who is not going to allow our country to become like Germany or the UK. Once they're in, it's difficult to change course. Do you want to see major street traffic come to a halt, because a thousand people decided that putting their butts in the air, in prayer, was more important than you getting to your office?

Funny how liberals like to preach their separation of church and state bullshit, denounce religion, but yet come to the aid of religious extremists, who want to kill us, every time. You either hate religion, or you don't. Atheists are a funny lot. They claim to believe in no deities, yet will spend countless hours fighting against something they do not believe exists. How do you explain that shit? Most of them claim to be liberals, but will come to the defense of a Muslim, in a heartbeat, but not a Christian. How do you explain that shit?

What exactly is the problem with the current vetting process? Letting Muslims in?