Trump delivers again; bans immigration from 7 Muslim countries.

[RedDuke]

Let me provide my thoughts on President Trump's executive order on a immigration ban from these 7 countries.

First let me say at its core, the order is constitutional and legal. The ability of the President to issue orders banning immigration on a temporary basis from particular countries or particular groups of individuals has consistently been held up in court. In fact all 5 previous Presidents have issued similar immigration executive orders. These type of Presidential actions have been performed as far back as the 1830s and have always been supported in court decisions.

Now let me discuss the problems I see with the executive order from President Trump. First the banning of Green Card holders was over-reach (it appears to have been rescinded). The order does not address people with dual citizenship (e.g. what about dual Canadian/Iranian citizens?). Also people in transit with valid Visa's in-hand should have been admitted.

In my opinion the implementation of the policy was very poor. No guidelines were handed to agencies prior the announcement. There should have been clear guidelines prepared and issued prior the "start date". Also all the airlines, embassies and foreign governments were caught unprepared. The Executive Order should have had a "start date" about a week after the announcement in terms of banning incoming travelers with valid Visas, but stopped issuing new Visas immediately. The concept that terrorists from these countries would have rushed to come to the U.S. is not true (especially since most would not have Visas on the announcement date) - most of those trapped abroad are Visa holders who were actually in the U.S. already and then were abroad visiting family etc.

Now some have questioned "why this list of 7 countries and not others where the 9/11 terrorists came from?" As noted by former President Obama these 7 countries are high risk because they do not vet and provide information on the travelers they send abroad. There are international standards for sharing information regarding people on flights that most countries adhere to. However these 7 countries do not share information - due to two reasons. Some of these countries (e.g. Syria) are war torn entities with no effective functioning central government. Others such as Iran simply refuse to cooperate and properly share information.

I will note that countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan fully cooperate and share information via standard computer systems about their citizens traveling on airlines. This is why these countries are not on the high risk list or part of this temporary travel ban.

It can not be summed up any better!!!!!!!!

 

[Zzzz1]

No, it only shows you are not thinking about what you read, same with your fake news sources.

Lol. Fair enough. It bears repeating

 

[Zzzz1]

I agree that a temporary ban of refugees from terrorist harboring nations is indeed a good idea.

But, you do not find a problem with the fact to have a president who does not think BEFORE he sign executive orders and who does not employ staff that think before they instruct agencies to act upon? How did this green card issue ever get into this executive order? And dual citizens? And how did all the confusion in the UK come about how some retard in the UK claimed he secured a special deal with Trump until the US embassy to the UK had to clarify that was not the case? And how did all that chaos come about at US airports BECAUSE the executive order was not immediately publicized and available to all executive organs with clear and transparent instructions? Now blaming airports and media and all sorts of people is ridiculous. Fact is that the president himself did not work this out professionally before he signed the order. That all does not bother you? Then I must say Americans' standards are incredibly low. People in most other Western nations hold their leaders to way higher standards. It was a disgrace how this executive order was implemented and even the most fervent Trump supporters should simply admit it and move on. Denying such is just denying the truth and facts.

Let me provide my thoughts on President Trump's executive order on a immigration ban from these 7 countries.

First let me say at its core, the order is constitutional and legal. The ability of the President to issue orders banning immigration on a temporary basis from particular countries or particular groups of individuals has consistently been held up in court. In fact all 5 previous Presidents have issued similar immigration executive orders. These type of Presidential actions have been performed as far back as the 1830s and have always been supported in court decisions.

Now let me discuss the problems I see with the executive order from President Trump. First the banning of Green Card holders was over-reach (it appears to have been rescinded). The order does not address people with dual citizenship (e.g. what about dual Canadian/Iranian citizens?). Also people in transit with valid Visa's in-hand should have been admitted.

In my opinion the implementation of the policy was very poor. No guidelines were handed to agencies prior the announcement. There should have been clear guidelines prepared and issued prior the "start date". Also all the airlines, embassies and foreign governments were caught unprepared. The Executive Order should have had a "start date" about a week after the announcement in terms of banning incoming travelers with valid Visas, but stopped issuing new Visas immediately. The concept that terrorists from these countries would have rushed to come to the U.S. is not true (especially since most would not have Visas on the announcement date) - most of those trapped abroad are Visa holders who were actually in the U.S. already and then were abroad visiting family etc.

Now some have questioned "why this list of 7 countries and not others where the 9/11 terrorists came from?" As noted by former President Obama these 7 countries are high risk because they do not vet and provide information on the travelers they send abroad. There are international standards for sharing information regarding people on flights that most countries adhere to. However these 7 countries do not share information - due to two reasons. Some of these countries (e.g. Syria) are war torn entities with no effective functioning central government. Others such as Iran simply refuse to cooperate and properly share information.

I will note that countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan fully cooperate and share information via standard computer systems about their citizens traveling on airlines. This is why these countries are not on the high risk list or part of this temporary travel ban.

 

[M.ST.]

Yeah Merkelboy, your mama separating entire Europe by their chaotic decision process breaking the law is so much better. Letting in floods of male muslim sex tourists without any registration and after those criminals and rapists have done their job they go into hiding sleeping and waiting for next orders to create chaos and fear. Look at the real damage she and her nut job ministries have created in Europe over and over again it is not just the refugees crisis, no, it is a long list of failures by Mama Merkel. She is creating hostility and alienating all over the place. She already has a lot of blood on their hands. That woman is a lunatic and she is the actual one who should be put in a psychiatric hospital or better yet finally getting impeached and put behind bars eating just bread and drinking water for the rest of her life.

 

[Scataphagos]

Yeah Merkelboy, your mama separating entire Europe by their chaotic decision process breaking the law is so much better. Letting in floods of male muslim sex tourists without any registration and after those criminals and rapists have done their job they go into hiding sleeping and waiting for next orders to create chaos and fear. Look at the real damage she and her nut job ministries have created in Europe over and over again it is not just the refugees crisis, no, it is a long list of failures by Mama Merkel. She is creating hostility and alienating all over the place. She already has a lot of blood on their hands. That woman is a lunatic and she is the actual one who should be put in a psychiatric hospital or better yet finally getting impeached and put behind bars eating just bread and drinking water for the rest of her life.

Merkel, Obama and Hellary should all share the same prison cell.

 

[Tsing Tao]

"Exclusive: Only a third of Americans think Trump's travel ban will make them more safe" - http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-poll-exclusive-idUSKBN15F2MG

Regarding that poll, this also came out. Interesting, huh? Oops.

-------
Donald Trump’s pro-American immigration reform is getting strong majority support from the public, despite the left’s portrayal of the policy as hateful and incompetent, and despite Democratic voters’ determination to obstruct the new president.

Reuters commissioned the poll and then tried to hide the resulting good news for Trump under a misleading headline, “Exclusive: Only a third of Americans think Trump’s travel ban will make them more safe.”

But the most direct question in the poll showed a seven-point advantage for Trump’s policy, of 48 support to 41 percent opposition.





However, that hard-edged “blocking refugees and banning people” question is not conclusive because most Americans want to help both their fellow Americans and foreign strangers. Americans’ generous attitude ensures that they are often reluctant to show favoritism to their fellow nationals or opposition to foreign migrants. So their hidden views can be teased out by asking indirect questions.


One indirect question used by Reuters’ pollster asked if the United States should “limit the number of refugees allowed into the country.” That question scored 66 percent support to 26 percent opposition, showing overwhelming yet hidden support for Trump’s new policy of welcoming a limited inflow of refugees while excluding hostile migrants.



Better still for Trump, the “strong” support for his refugee-limiting policy was three times as large as the “strong” opposition, 32 percent to 10 percent, and the GOP voters’ response was very similar to the response from swing-voting independents.

Trump’s policy has ignited a debate on refugee inflows from Muslim majority countries. But the core part of Trump’s policy is a shift towards rejection of would-be migrants whose culture and ideas are hostile to Americans’ traditions of personal independence and small government. Here is the critical passage from Trump’s pro-American immigration policy:

In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

The American public’s contradictory emotions slide in various directions, depending on minor changes to questions.

For example, when asked by Reuters’ pollster if the U.S. should “open our borders to refugees of foreign conflicts,” the percentage of respondents strongly supporting an apparently unlimited number of refugees jumped up to 19 percent, almost double the 10 percent in the prior “limit the number of refugees” question.



That question and answer suggests that Americans do not recognize the “open borders” term as a left-wing code-word for mass migration by 100 million people from Africa, Arabia and Asia.

The new poll was conducted by Ipsos polling, from Jan. 30 to Jan. 31, on behalf Thomson Reuters. It included roughly 1,201 adults, with 453 declared Democrats, 478 declared Republicans, and 149 declared independents.

Many polls show that the public wants the federal government to cap or shrink immigration. For example, a September poll by Ipsos showed that only 12 percent of respondents strongly opposed plans to “change the legal immigration system to limit legal immigration.” Four times as many, or 57 percent, back reductions in legal immigration, while 13 percent did not take a position.

In 2016, under policies set by President Barack Obama, roughly one new immigrant or foreign contract-worker joined the U.S. workforce for every two Americans who entered the workforce.

 

[Tsing Tao]

It's ok, he does not really understand himself sometimes.

BTW, I showed you a less biased poll from a less biased source. Or is Reuters biased nowadays, too?

Easy, Volpunter. I'm an American, living in the United States. Thus, I function on one of the time zones we Americans live in. I'm not usually up during the European or Asian morning, so you'll have to be patient while I get here, read your latest attack on the US/administration post and comment.

 

[fhl]

 

[Frederick Foresight]

 

[Tsing Tao]

Falling out of bed is deadly!