Immigration Ban

#401
#401
Septic said:
The "bad optics" wasn't due to the "media frenzy", it's because there isn't a filter between the hamster in Donnys head and his twitter account.
Click to expand...

Considering it aligns with other Obama policies that they never made a stink about, I would say it's a frenzy
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#403
#403
UTCVol said:
I must have missed the part where Trump collaborated with Congress to enact this policy. Unconstitutional indeed.
Click to expand...

I am confident sir that you miss quite a bit thru the course of a typical day..

Maybe you should do a little research and maybe you would see how many past presidents have enacted temporary bans on certain immigrants including democrats Jimmy Carter Bill Clinton and Barack Obama..

Wonder why the media was not worked into a frenzy when those "unconstitutional" executive actions occurred??

Its time for truth to be the truth!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#404
#404
UTCVol said:
I must have missed the part where Trump collaborated with Congress to enact this policy. Unconstitutional indeed.
Click to expand...

Seeing as Obama and Congress had already amended the INA, already slid the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 through and that DHS under Obama already added to the list of original countries considered to be of concern, President Trump just needed to reference those works, which he did in his EO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#405
#405
Can we go ahead and shut the book on the ridiculous suggestion in thread title? That is unless you think Obama is a Russian agent too who wanted to aid in Trumps business affairs
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#406
#406
DynaLo said:
Seeing as Obama and Congress had already amended the INA, already slid the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 through and that DHS under Obama already added to the list of original countries considered to be of concern, President Trump just needed to reference those works, which he did in his EO.
Click to expand...

Trump's EO seems to be a substantial extension of the restrictions outlined in the aforementioned acts. They laid the groundwork, but does that mean this is purely in the purview of the executive?
 
#407
#407
checkthetape said:
I am confident sir that you miss quite a bit thru the course of a typical day..

Maybe you should do a little research and maybe you would see how many past presidents have enacted temporary bans on certain immigrants including democrats Jimmy Carter Bill Clinton and Barack Obama..

Wonder why the media was not worked into a frenzy when those "unconstitutional" executive actions occurred??

Its time for truth to be the truth!!!
Click to expand...

Sorry, bud. I'm not a media member. Unlike yourself, I'm perfectly willing to criticize politicians of any stripe.

I've already made clear that while I don't agree with that the substance of the EO, my primary issue was how the initial rollout affected those who already live and work here. It is gravely concerning. For the record, I said the same thing about the Obamacare website disaster, which also happened to be a policy with which I vehemently disagree, and many other government follies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#408
#408
UTCVol said:
Trump's EO seems to be a substantial extension of the restrictions outlined in the aforementioned acts. They laid the groundwork, but does that mean this is purely in the purview of the executive?
Click to expand...

Existential difference between a career politician and a career businessman sitting as President.
 
#409
#409
n_huffhines said:
Just make your point.
Click to expand...

I've already made it.

Rasputin_Vol said:
It is just a shame that we have people that continue to react immediately off of media interpretations without even reading the text of the executive order.

If you are from one of these countries and you already have a visa to legally be here, this doesn't pertain to you. This executive order put a halt on new visa registrations and a halt to refugees from these certain countries.

My only complaint and comment about this order is that it picks on Iran but excludes Saudi Arabia. I think those that bring up that complain raise a fair point.
Click to expand...
 
#412
#412
UTCVol said:
Sorry, bud. I'm not a media member. Unlike yourself, I'm perfectly willing to criticize politicians of any stripe.

I've already made clear that while I don't agree with that the substance of the EO, my primary issue was how the initial rollout affected those who already live and work here. It is gravely concerning. For the record, I said the same thing about the Obamacare website disaster, which also happened to be a policy with which I vehemently disagree, and many other government follies.
Click to expand...

I am willing as well to criticize any politician regardless of affiliation.. Both of the Bush men were awful leaders of the free world because of their globalist agenda.. The truth is that most Republican congressman are as much a part of the problem as anyone..

I understand your concern for those of us already here but I will say it again.. The Muslim world already despises the USA as much as it possibly can.. Nothing will make it worse.. The two belief systems can NOT coexist peacefully
 
#413
#413
UTCVol said:
I don't agree with the plan because it's tantamount to chasing ghosts, especially when to my knowledge there has never been a terrorist attack on US soil perpetrated by an individual from these nations. The origins of these terrorists are not exactly a secret, either.

However, my main issue is that upon its rollout it affected people who live and work in America and contribute more than their share to our economy. It was shoddily enacted.
Click to expand...

That's funny. because over the last 16 years, we've had 2 administrations from both sides of the aisle name these very same countries as terrorist states... along with North Korea.

BTW, how many terror attacks have we had from North Koreans?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#415
#415
Rasputin_Vol said:
That's funny. because over the last 16 years, we've had 2 administrations from both sides of the aisle name these very same countries as terrorist states... along with North Korea.

BTW, how many terror attacks have we had from North Koreans?
Click to expand...

The facts say that the nations primarily responsible for these terrorist attacks were not among the seven mentioned in these pieces of legislation. It's pretty clear that this has been a long-term game of political posturing that will do almost nothing to solve the terror issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#421
#421
I wonder what this circus is costing us?
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_2017-01-29-21-53-36~2.jpg
    Screenshot_2017-01-29-21-53-36~2.jpg
    48.2 KB · Views: 0
#422
#422
How in the hell do you sign an Executive Order without first briefing or consulting the person who will have to enforce it.
 

Attachments

  • C3ZGaU9WcAAD9u_.jpg
    C3ZGaU9WcAAD9u_.jpg
    61.7 KB · Views: 1
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#423
#423
DynaLo said:
By that reasoning alone, Obama sucked royally due to his usage of EO to circumvent the Constitution.

Here's just a quick 10 incidents, there are many more, from the desk of the constitutional law professor.

Forbes Welcome
Click to expand...

I have never defended Obama's pathetic constitutional bona fides, and I do indeed think he sucked royally.
 
#424
#424
Justin Amash is setting the record straight for everyone.

Many supporters and opponents of President Trump's executive order are conflating the terms "immigrant" (which encompasses green card holders), "nonimmigrant," and "refugee."

It's not lawful to ban immigrants because of "nationality, place of birth, or place of residence." This nondiscrimination provision comes from a 1965 law (8 U.S.C. 1152 Sec. 202(a)(1)(A)) that limits the 1952 law (8 U.S.C. 1182 Sec. 212(f)) that the president cites.

It's lawful to ban nonimmigrants for almost any reason. These are people who are temporarily visiting the United States, like tourists or students.

It's lawful to ban refugees for almost any reason. But banning all refugees from particular countries is harsh and unwise. We still should admit well-vetted persons.

Understanding these distinctions is important because supporters of President Trump's executive order continue to wrongly insist that the order is lawful and that President Obama did almost the same thing in 2011. And opponents of President Trump's executive order continue to wrongly insist that banning refugees violates the Constitution or the law.

President Trump's executive order covers not only refugees but also immigrants and nonimmigrants. As noted above, it's not lawful to discriminate in the issuance of an *immigrant* visa because of the person's "nationality, place of birth, or place of residence."

President Obama's action (which wasn't disclosed at the time) covered only refugees and, therefore, did not violate the Constitution or the law, even if one finds it objectionable for other reasons.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top