Latest info re immigration from Trump

[fathertime]

It's more The Atlantic's explanation than mine...

 ..."Indeed, it has its roots in the visa-waiver program. The U.S. allows the citizens of more than 30 countries to visit for short stays without a visa under this program. But that visa waiver does not apply if a citizen of an eligible country has visited—with some exceptions—Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen on or after March 1, 2011—under measures put in place by the Obama administration. Those individuals must apply for a visa at a U.S. consulate. These seven countries are listed under section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12) of the U.S. code, and it is this code that Trump’s executive order cited while banning citizens of those nations.

http://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/01/trump-immigration-order-muslims/514844/

As LFU posted more countries may be added as time goes on.

Brass

Thanks for the text and to LFU for link to interview. 


Now that I've read/seen what they have said, I still think it for show or something else!  It just isn't sensible to leave out 2 or 3 of the main countries terrorists are likely to come from.  I'm not a constitutional expert but it seems to me that if the intended purpose was to lower the likelihood of a terrorist act, Trump would have included Saudi Arabia in an executive order.  If nothing else, Trump gets things done IF he wants to, so I'm led to believe he didn't want to.  Which leads to; Why?  Is this really about the countries (and Anti US policies) more than the individuals that are going to commit acts of terror? These are merely questions at this point, because something about Trump and surrogates explanation doesn't smell right to me just yet. 


Fathertime! 

[Gator]

OMG! The fatass troglodyte has just fired the acting Attorney General, proposed that the state department personnel filing dissent leave, and restructured the National Security Council to exclude the CIA director and to include the white supremacist Bannon.

Troglodyte?  I would like to live in his cave.  He is gregarious, not a hermit. 

You may not be concerned about immigration, but listen to what Clinton had to say 22 years ago.  Not Hillary, the other Clinton.  And that was before ISIS. 

http://www.c-span.org/video/? c4351026/c

"I am Donald Trump, and I approve Bill's message."

[wallm]

Looks like all the phony, bleeding heart, tree hugging, anti-America liberals have their panties in a bunch.

You'll should have known this was coming. He announced during the campaign he would do it.

I support this except for not allowing green card holders to come.

[tfcrew]

  Did not stop him from jumping into the deep end of the pool

Swamp Thing is a good guy

[ML]

Many keep questioning why some countries on the list, and some not.

Heard a good explanation today.

The terrorist thingy is always in flux.  On 9/11, ISIS did not exist.
Now that ISIS is on the run in Syria/Iraq, they are branching out into other countries.
Some of these countries are giving them sanctuary, allowing them to set up training bases, etc.

Despite most of 9/11 guys coming from Saudia, the Saudia official government has never sanctioned terrorists, provided them funding, training bases, etc.

So ending point is, not a question of home country of past terrorists, but where are terrorists now, are they welcomed and supported by the governments of those countries, etc.

Apparently Obama's crew determined that the 7 countries were harboring terrorists, allowing them safe sanctuary, allowing training base operations and perhaps even providing funding.

They also determined that Saudi, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Russia were not doing those things.

[wallm]

They also determined that Saudi, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Russia were not doing those things.

Hogwash! Pakistan is a disgrace. They actively support, train, fund and harbor terrorists who infiltrate India and hate us too. I would put Pakistan on this ban list.

[GQBlues]

Donald once said during the campaign, as an option, that the better way to handle the current flow of refugees is to create a huge 'safe zone' somewhere in the Middle-East, where the international community could put together their resources to make sure all of them are well taken care of. No need for screening, no need for resettling unto a culture/society different from their own.

Apparently, UNHCR would have applauded this initiative had it actually happened. Donald is obviously as brilliant as they come. Brash, impulsive but brilliant as he can be.

In the US, on average, it was estimated a refugee cost US taxpayers about $64,000.00 for the first 5 years, OR, $ 257,400.00 for a household of 4. Of course, since the money are from tax revenue to begin with, I'm almost certain it is either non-taxable, or they pay very little if they even do.

To care for refugees in any neighboring countries around Syria, UNHCR estimates it cost $1,057.00/refugee *annually* - 12 times the amount we spend for one here at home. In short, for every refugee we take in and care for - 12 can benefit for the same penny in Syria's neighboring countries.

Now, how many of these refugees we're committed to receive again? 200 - 300,000? Maybe more? Cause to pause if you consider on top of this, we are taking care of +/- 11 million illegal immigrants, our own *home bred refugees* (ok, they're really not refugees. They just act like it).

Now I know why Schumer was in tears the other day.

....UNHCR reports a gap of $2.5 billion in funding that it needs to care for approximately four million Syrians in neighboring countries.

The five-year cost of resettling about 39,000 Syrian refugees in the United States is enough to erase the current UNHCR funding gap....

4 million versus 39,000.

Citation: http://cis.org/High-Cost-of-Resettling-Middle-Eastern-Refugees

[LiveFromUkraine]

Exactly. Try to explain to my wife the Jamaican is an illegal immigrant versus a refugee. Or tell my buddies little girl her daddy is no longer around because we failed to vet or staunch the flow of undesirables into our country.


The liberals don't get it. The wealthy Hollywood actors don't get it. The tech billionaires don't get it. It does not affect them. It affects the common American.

It almost seems as if any violence perpetrated by refugees/immigrants isn't as big of a deal to our more liberal leaning folks.  They either gloss over it or completely ignore it.   I am surprised at the cognitive dissonance shown when rapes and sexual assaults happens by these groups of people.


Imagine if a group of white men did the same thing.  Lawd have mercy!

[Larry1]

Donald once said during the campaign, as an option, that the better way to handle the current flow of refugees is to create a huge 'safe zone' somewhere in the Middle-East, where the international community could put together their resources to make sure all of them are well taken care of. No need for screening, no need for resettling unto a culture/society different from their own.

But GQ, creating refugee camps in the Middle East wouldn't generate Democrat votes like allowing them here would.

[GQBlues]

It almost seems as if any violence perpetrated by refugees/immigrants isn't as big of a deal to our more liberal leaning folks.  They either gloss over it or completely ignore it.   I am surprised at the cognitive dissonance shown when rapes and sexual assaults happens by these groups of people.


Imagine if a group of white men did the same thing.  Lawd have mercy!

LOL. Yes, the party of love, progress and tolerance....this happened in one of the liberal airports where these liberal numbnuts are exercising their 1st amendment rights - by bashing a Trump supporter on the head with a metal bar, then berated him as the guy laid unconscious.



This must be what the Vatican Pope was trying to promote in his diatribe the other day.

Obama must be proud!

[fathertime]

But GQ, creating refugee camps in the Middle East wouldn't generate Democrat votes like allowing them here would.

I get the feeling that is the root concern for many things a subset intolerant Republicans fear most.


Fathertime!

[GQBlues]

But GQ, creating refugee camps in the Middle East wouldn't generate Democrat votes like allowing them here would.

True. You have a point there, Larry. But I thought that's why DACA was created? Not enough?

[fathertime]

It almost seems as if any violence perpetrated by refugees/immigrants isn't as big of a deal to our more liberal leaning folks.  They either gloss over it or completely ignore it.   I am surprised at the cognitive dissonance shown when rapes and sexual assaults happens by these groups of people.


Imagine if a group of white men did the same thing.  Lawd have mercy!

I think you enjoy believing that, but I don't think it is correct. 


I, for one, may be somewhat left leaning on certain issues, and would be just fine with violent offenders being severely punished (Up to execution for repeat offenders or murderers).  That said, I don't see the reason for this recent order.  They say, something like 100 and some odd people have been stopped/detained.  Why didn't Trump have the capacity to marshal the manpower to vet more thoroughly so few travelers (Most of which would have likely passed screening very quickly), and instead use the ban of 7 countries instead?  In my opinion, Trump could have taken taken this step, but instead chose to go extreme for a reason other than security.  For better or worse, he made a splash, I doubt he will go further and ban any other country with significance....but his history is to double down so we shall see. 


We have had decades to prefect security, so I'm curious what changes will be made to the vetting process in the 90 days.
Fathertime! 

[fathertime]

Many keep questioning why some countries on the list, and some not.

Heard a good explanation today.

The terrorist thingy is always in flux.  On 9/11, ISIS did not exist.
Now that ISIS is on the run in Syria/Iraq, they are branching out into other countries.
Some of these countries are giving them sanctuary, allowing them to set up training bases, etc.

Despite most of 9/11 guys coming from Saudia, the Saudia official government has never sanctioned terrorists, provided them funding, training bases, etc.

So ending point is, not a question of home country of past terrorists, but where are terrorists now, are they welcomed and supported by the governments of those countries, etc.

Apparently Obama's crew determined that the 7 countries were harboring terrorists, allowing them safe sanctuary, allowing training base operations and perhaps even providing funding.

They also determined that Saudi, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Russia were not doing those things.

If indeed what Trump did was for security, then it shouldn't matter which country are funding the terrorists, what should matter is where terrorists would be coming from, and preventing them from entering.  Using that reasoning, if Trump's first priority was to improve security, he would have went after Saudi Arabia first or second, instead of leaving them off the list altogether.  The more I read, the less I believe the reasoning given...There may be some solid reasons that Trump isn't going public with, but what they have said publicly is mostly hogwash in my opinion...not much different than all the past presidents...


Fathertime!   

[BillyB]

1.  Was any harm done other than inconveniencing a few travelers? 

My State's AG is suing Trump. No telling how many other lawsuits our tax money will have to defend against due to Trump's "temporary 90" day actions. Amazon and Expedia will testify in court how Trump hurt their businesses. Microsoft and Boeing also uses foreign workers to get things done.

2.  Do you feel immigrants from these countries pose an assed security risk?     
 

Like Pitbull mentioned upthread, no terrorist acts happened in America from a citizen of the 7 nation ban list. Trump could have done a better job improving the vetting process Obama started on those 7 nations with minimal impact on our economy and been more responsible in taking care of our tax dollars. It's not the improved vetting process he wants to implement that bother me, it's the poor execution and lack of understanding of the harmful effects he causes this nation.

Hogwash! Pakistan is a disgrace. They actively support, train, fund and harbor terrorists who infiltrate India and hate us too. I would put Pakistan on this ban list.

Pakistan was hiding Osama Bin Misbehaving while taking our money pretending to assist in anti terrorism. Not a very productive member in the fight against terrorism.

Saudi Arabia isn't a saint either. They played a role, a bad one, in 9/11. Congress allowed victims to sue Saudi Arabia. Obama vetoed the bill and Congress gave Obama his first override of a veto as president. Congress must feel there is strong evidence in Saudi Arabia's role in the biggest terrorist act to allow a key ally in the Middle East to get sued. Obama and Trump are playing favorites.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress-thwarts-obama-on-bill-allowing-911-lawsuits-against-saudi-arabia/2016/09/28/a93e31ba-859b-11e6-ac72-a29979381495_story.html?utm_term=.096c3a25056d

[GQBlues]

....Like Pitbull mentioned upthread, no terrorist acts happened in America from a citizen of the 7 nation ban list....

Billy, she's wrong and so are you.

But be that as it may, banning those countries have more to do with the fact it is known that 5 of the countries have increasing terror factions in its borders. ISIS in Syria, Libya, Iraq. Al Qaeda in Yemen, Al Shabab in Somalia. While  Sudan and Iran is held by the State Dept. as countries that support international terrorism. That was the focal reason Obama modified the Visa Waiver and gave travel restriction into those countries back in February 2016, and which Trump cited in his current ban.

We went to war in Afghanistan in our 'war on terror' despite the fact no Afghani ever committed any acts of terrorism in the US before either.

Is it really that difficult for you guys to grasp this?

THINK.

It's bad enough you folks gobble up liberal news trash everyday like mindless minions, it's quite another you guys blindly repeat it. Liberals are fast becoming as much a danger into our society as these terrorists are.

[LiveFromUkraine]

I think you enjoy believing that, but I don't think it is correct. 

Why would I enjoy believing that?

http://shoebat.com/2016/02/15/thank-you-for-raping-me-german-socialist-woman-thanks-muslim-refugees-for-gang-raping-her/

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/260971/muslim-refugee-tries-rape-swedish-woman-she-feels-daniel-greenfield

I, for one, may be somewhat left leaning on certain issues, and would be just fine with violent offenders being severely punished (Up to execution for repeat offenders or murderers).  That said, I don't see the reason for this recent order.  They say, something like 100 and some odd people have been stopped/detained.  Why didn't Trump have the capacity to marshal the manpower to vet more thoroughly so few travelers (Most of which would have likely passed screening very quickly), and instead use the ban of 7 countries instead?  In my opinion, Trump could have taken taken this step, but instead chose to go extreme for a reason other than security.  For better or worse, he made a splash, I doubt he will go further and ban any other country with significance....but his history is to double down so we shall see. 

I am left leaning on many issues.  I do confess that I am starting to push more toward the right after seeing how the left reacted and continue to react after this election.

Trump just took office.  I imagine he is working on the vetting while the travel hiatus is implemented.

We have had decades to prefect security, so I'm curious what changes will be made to the vetting process in the 90 days.
Fathertime!

You really think we have had decades of perfect security?  Didn't most of the 911 terrorists come here on student visa's?

We really don't have that much experience fighting the type of terrorist attacks we are seeing. 

[JayH]

Yes.  Did not stop him from jumping into the deep end of the pool, albeit clumsily.  I expect more of the same from a man of action.  I do not expect him to stop and relax for afternoon tea with a watercress sandwich (crust removed).   

A couple of questions for you:

1.  Was any harm done other than inconveniencing a  few travelers? 
2.  Do you feel immigrants from these countries pose an assed security risk?     
 


Why are you uncomfortable?  This is totally expected. 

Trump is not a politician.  Unlike wimpy politicians who plan carefully not to make a mistake and as a result accomplish little, he feels the need to be bold to accomplish a lot, knowing he will make mistakes along the way.  General Patton.

Actually  --he is now a "politician"

Any elected official that chooses to burn large segments of the constituency is headed for disaster.

I note a fair % of mindless support for Trump here  -- and it will come back to haunt many.

This edict was and is a reckless ill thought  thru  action that may well typify the Trump reign.   ie  cause short term mayhem while Trump proclaims his action man status.

This has nothing to do with being left or right,liberal or conservative  --or in fact any other label some of you seem intent on applying  to those that are negative.

The far bigger picture is that governments tend to move slowly for a reason   eg-- to put checks and balances in place. In this case -- it is most likely that eventually the courts will decide the legality -- and in the process cost a fortune to sort out.
A pointless exercise.

What is to be noted -- not many of us disagree with the principle here  -- it is the execution that is flawed.

Half arsed stupidity by any elected official should be condemned -- not justified  & rationalised.

[BC]

Donald once said during the campaign, as an option, that the better way to handle the current flow of refugees is to create a huge 'safe zone' somewhere in the Middle-East, where the international community could put together their resources to make sure all of them are well taken care of. No need for screening, no need for resettling unto a culture/society different from their own.

Apparently, UNHCR would have applauded this initiative had it actually happened. Donald is obviously as brilliant as they come. Brash, impulsive but brilliant as he can be.

In the US, on average, it was estimated a refugee cost US taxpayers about $64,000.00 for the first 5 years, OR, $ 257,400.00 for a household of 4. Of course, since the money are from tax revenue to begin with, I'm almost certain it is either non-taxable, or they pay very little if they even do.

To care for refugees in any neighboring countries around Syria, UNHCR estimates it cost $1,057.00/refugee *annually* - 12 times the amount we spend for one here at home. In short, for every refugee we take in and care for - 12 can benefit for the same penny in Syria's neighboring countries.

It's not as easy as saying 'camp here'..  First you have to build, feed and most expensive of all defend.  We're not talking hundreds or thousands, but many hundreds of thousands and even more that would seek safe shelter.  Problem is that neighboring countries are already at their limits.  Jordan alone with 1.5 million refugees.  http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/king-abdullah-ii-explains-why-jordan-took-millions-of-syrian-refugees/   That represents 1.5 Billion in UNHCR costs.  5 million are already in surrounding neighbor countries and by now another 7 million refugees still in Syria..  http://syrianrefugees.eu/

But ok, I'm all for taking 25 Billion from Trump's 'Great Wall of Fear' as a contribution to providing a safe zone for the refugees.  I'm sure KBR would love to take on the project.

[mhr7]

He said that was what he would do. Is the left really going to have
kittens every time he does exactly what he said he would do?

How did you react when Obama did something you didn't like?

[mhr7]

Looks like all the phony, bleeding heart, tree hugging, anti-America liberals have their panties in a bunch.

You'll should have known this was coming. He announced during the campaign he would do it.

I support this except for not allowing green card holders to come.

Ah, so it's now anti-American to have one's own opinion? I suppose we all have to agree with you?

[msmob]

It almost seems as if any violence perpetrated by refugees/immigrants isn't as big of a deal to our more liberal leaning folks.  They either gloss over it or completely ignore it.   I am surprised at the cognitive dissonance shown when rapes and sexual assaults happens by these groups of people.


Imagine if a group of white men did the same thing.  Lawd have mercy!

This is the huge irony of modern day Americans 'objecting' to a 'flood' of immigrants descending upon them .. of 'differing beliefs' - 'raping' their women .. It would be 'funny' if it wasn't so ironic...

I have two daughters - the idea of any one attacking them is abhorrent. Yet one lives in S.London and when t'other visits and they hit the town - and clubs..

Yet to read on here, some might think London is highly unsafe for white lasses.

Might my attitude change if they were attacked by someone who was an immigrant from a nation 'Tramp' has 'banned' - I hope not - but can't say.

Judging by the predatory behaviour of 'respected' white folks .. I'm wondering if the emphasis on the danger is skewed

I thought I might mention this as some folks seem to post, as if they are deranged






 

[wallm]

Ah, so it's now anti-American to have one's own opinion? I suppose we all have to agree with you?

Not at all. I am exercising the first amendment. 

[msmob]

Really?

Yes, really - It is noted you couldn't rebut your fails on the 'end of  Europe' thread - you know, you being "an expert from thousand of miles away" -  Is the irony penny dropping for you. yet ?

I would like to ask one thing...why can't the UK get something besides a mealy mouth, wishy washy, flip flop prime minister?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresa_May
 
Like saying a communistic-capitalist [not to be confused with a capitalistic-communist]

not dictating policy

Tfcrew

I didn't vote for her ... hang on a minute .. no-one did

May 'sat on the fence' during the Brexit campaign - as a member of Cameron's cabinet - stating she was pro remain

She inherited the 'throne' of the Tory party leadership - as the strongly pro-Brexiters  wiped each other in a comical suicide theatre in the fall out of resignations after the referendum

I wish she would call an election

[Gator]

Donald once said during the campaign, as an option, that the better way to handle the current flow of refugees is to create a huge 'safe zone' somewhere in the Middle-East, where the international community could put together their resources to make sure all of them are well taken care of. No need for screening, no need for resettling unto a culture/society different from their own.

Apparently, UNHCR would have applauded this initiative had it actually happened. Donald is obviously as brilliant as they come. Brash, impulsive but brilliant as he can be.

In the US, on average, it was estimated a refugee cost US taxpayers about $64,000.00 for the first 5 years, OR, $ 257,400.00 for a household of 4. Of course, since the money are from tax revenue to begin with, I'm almost certain it is either non-taxable, or they pay very little if they even do.

To care for refugees in any neighboring countries around Syria, UNHCR estimates it cost $1,057.00/refugee *annually* - 12 times the amount we spend for one here at home. In short, for every refugee we take in and care for - 12 can benefit for the same penny in Syria's neighboring countries.

Now, how many of these refugees we're committed to receive again? 200 - 300,000? Maybe more? Cause to pause if you consider on top of this, we are taking care of +/- 11 million illegal immigrants, our own *home bred refugees* (ok, they're really not refugees. They just act like it).

Now I know why Schumer was in tears the other day.

....UNHCR reports a gap of $2.5 billion in funding that it needs to care for approximately four million Syrians in neighboring countries.

The five-year cost of resettling about 39,000 Syrian refugees in the United States is enough to erase the current UNHCR funding gap....

4 million versus 39,000.

Citation: http://cis.org/High-Cost-of-Resettling-Middle-Eastern-Refugees

Excellent point.      

I applaud because I have been saying the same for a couple of years after a Swedish friend criticized my America for not taking more refugees.

I add another point to support a policy of keeping refugees near their homeland. Syria and  other lawless countries need to be rebuilt when the fighting ceases.  If the educated and competent refugees have been resettled in distant Western countries, few will return to do the rebuilding. 

In 2016 I was amazed by the number of doctors who stayed in Aleppo during the fighting.  Engineers and others also stayed to keep the infrastructure  limping along.   These are the people who need to be quartered nearby in safe zones rather than sent to distant lands from where they will never return.