At least courts promptly overruled the issue about green cards, but yes the treatment of already issued visas is going to go down in history as a shameful event in our history, and hopefully books get the record straight on how unpopular this move was and that it is not representative of Americans as a people.
But it is hard to conjure up a past presidential action that has done more damage to our perception in the rest of the world.
Definitely, yes.
Living in Brazil means I have witnessed several extremely dumb and harmful policies put in order by politicians, but this one by Trump still left me dumbfolded.
typical leftist response. No substance. Tell me whats sad. Freedom is sad?
It is sad that people exist who have no respect for the law or the well being of their fellow humankind.
People are living in fear all the time, and more guns = more fear, more gun violence, more killings, not less.
So I do think that there needs to be more regulation than currently exists. The United States has less restriction than any industrialized country in the free world, and cuncurrently has the highest incidence of gun crimes and murder rates. I do not believe this is a coincidence.
Yes it sucks for gun owners, but something needs to be done. And maybe police departments would be better off melting down seized guns for scrap metal as opposed to selling them back to the street for profit.
The United States is not like Australia where you can just ban all guns and everything is fine. Guns have been an integrated into our society since the American Revolution. It has further been integrated with the Civil War. Millions of Americans have hunted, and are continuing to hunt. Since the inception of our country, guns have been apart of it.
If you add restrictive gun laws on the federal level it will only hurt the law abiding citizens. It will cause an outcry, as well. The criminals will always find the guns, no matter what because there are so many guns to be had, legally or illegally, while the citizens obey and either lock away their disasembled gun in a safe that takes a minute to open in order to reassemble so they can even defend themselves, or they can only own glocks and the like.
I look at Chicago as an example. Chicago has the most restrictive gun laws and the highest gun crimes. It's because since the days of Al Capone, you could not find a citizen who didn't own a gun. It's the culture.
Taking a culture that already depends on guns and then restricting it will only have negative effects. You did not have that problem with Australia because guns were not depended upon. What can you even hunt in Australia? Kangaroos? Who the hell would want to hunt there?
Yup freedom is sad. That's definitely it. As a typical leftist I just hate freedom so much. Just beat me with your freedom stick. It'll make me love Toby Keith and Jesus. i swear to your god my skin isn't brown. Otherwise your freedom stick would have no effect
Shut up pumpkin head. Your face already scares me as it is. Pumpkin head. Scared... I'm scared now.
typical leftist response. No substance. Tell me whats sad. Freedom is sad?
It is sad that people exist who have no respect for the law or the well being of their fellow humankind.
People are living in fear all the time, and more guns = more fear, more gun violence, more killings, not less.
So I do think that there needs to be more regulation than currently exists. The United States has less restriction than any industrialized country in the free world, and cuncurrently has the highest incidence of gun crimes and murder rates. I do not believe this is a coincidence.
Yes it sucks for gun owners, but something needs to be done. And maybe police departments would be better off melting down seized guns for scrap metal as opposed to selling them back to the street for profit.
The United States is not like Australia where you can just ban all guns and everything is fine. Guns have been an integrated into our society since the American Revolution. It has further been integrated with the Civil War. Millions of Americans have hunted, and are continuing to hunt. Since the inception of our country, guns have been apart of it. If you add restrictive gun laws on the federal level it will only hurt the law abiding citizens. It will cause an outcry, as well. The criminals will always find the guns, no matter what because there are so many guns to be had, legally or illegally, while the citizens obey and either lock away their disasembled gun in a safe that takes a minute to open in order to reassemble so they can even defend themselves, or they can only own glocks and the like. I look at Chicago as an example. Chicago has the most restrictive gun laws and the highest gun crimes. It's because since the days of Al Capone, you could not find a citizen who didn't own a gun. It's the culture. Taking a culture that already depends on guns and then restricting it will only have negative effects. You did not have that problem with Australia because guns were not depended upon. What can you even hunt in Australia? Kangaroos? Who the hell would want to hunt there?
I'll second the post upthread that a discussion on gun control will be more pertinent if that issue ACTUALLY COMES UP as something Trump is dealing with.
But for the time being, it has nothing to do with anything.
Look I know everyone is in an uproar about the Muslim ban. I think it was unfair to ban people who already have green cards. But I think that issue has been overruled.
But as far as preventing refugees from certain countries where the population is mostly Muslim, I'm all for it. The United States has no obligation to continually bring in refugees in the first place, and to ban one specific group because of a religion that 1. Degrades women. 2. Where their book of guidance literally preaches, "killing all the infidels."
Might not be a terrible thing. I mean for one thing, most Muslims in the US would trade the Constitution for Shariah law. They believe the Qur'an should be the highest authority in any government. That scares me.
Look I know everyone is in an uproar about the Muslim ban. I think it was unfair to ban people who already have green cards. But I think that issue has been overruled. But as far as preventing refugees from certain countries where the population is mostly Muslim, I'm all for it. The United States has no obligation to continually bring in refugees in the first place, and to ban one specific group because of a religion that 1. Degrades women. 2. Where their book of guidance literally preaches, "killing all the infidels." Might not be a terrible thing. I mean for one thing, most Muslims in the US would trade the Constitution for Shariah law. They believe the Qur'an should be the highest authority in any government. That scares me.
What "Muslim ban"? There is a temporary visa approval suspension for refugees. Obama did the exact same thing in 2013, and Trump even used Obama's list of countries that Obama created.
These are countries that were selected as security risks by Obama. Not "Muslim". No one has "banned" Muslims. Where did you guys get that term from? It doesn't reflect the truth at all.
Look I know everyone is in an uproar about the Muslim ban. I think it was unfair to ban people who already have green cards. But I think that issue has been overruled. But as far as preventing refugees from certain countries where the population is mostly Muslim, I'm all for it. The United States has no obligation to continually bring in refugees in the first place, and to ban one specific group because of a religion that 1. Degrades women. 2. Where their book of guidance literally preaches, "killing all the infidels." Might not be a terrible thing. I mean for one thing, most Muslims in the US would trade the Constitution for Shariah law. They believe the Qur'an should be the highest authority in any government. That scares me.
What "Muslim ban"? There is a temporary visa approval suspension for refugees. Obama did the exact same thing in 2013, and Trump even used Obama's list of countries that Obama created.
These are countries that were selected as security risks by Obama. Not "Muslim". No one has "banned" Muslims. Where did you guys get that term from? It doesn't reflect the truth at all.
1. It is clearly targeted at Muslims, this travel ban.
Look I know everyone is in an uproar about the Muslim ban. I think it was unfair to ban people who already have green cards. But I think that issue has been overruled. But as far as preventing refugees from certain countries where the population is mostly Muslim, I'm all for it. The United States has no obligation to continually bring in refugees in the first place, and to ban one specific group because of a religion that 1. Degrades women. 2. Where their book of guidance literally preaches, "killing all the infidels." Might not be a terrible thing. I mean for one thing, most Muslims in the US would trade the Constitution for Shariah law. They believe the Qur'an should be the highest authority in any government. That scares me.
What "Muslim ban"? There is a temporary visa approval suspension for refugees. Obama did the exact same thing in 2013, and Trump even used Obama's list of countries that Obama created.
These are countries that were selected as security risks by Obama. Not "Muslim". No one has "banned" Muslims. Where did you guys get that term from? It doesn't reflect the truth at all.
You should reread what actually happened and what has actually been going on since Friday.
Initially, even people with green cards (i.e. already vetted permanent residents) were being barred from entry.
A judge promptly overruled that, and after those people being initially detained and hugely inconvenienced, they were allowed entry.
But since Friday, people who ALREADY HAD VISAS were being barred from entry.
(this includes people who aided our military as translators/interpreters, and who absolutely cannot safely return to their own countries)
That is NOT the same thing as just having a temporary ban on NEW visas.
Look I know everyone is in an uproar about the Muslim ban. I think it was unfair to ban people who already have green cards. But I think that issue has been overruled. But as far as preventing refugees from certain countries where the population is mostly Muslim, I'm all for it. The United States has no obligation to continually bring in refugees in the first place, and to ban one specific group because of a religion that 1. Degrades women. 2. Where their book of guidance literally preaches, "killing all the infidels." Might not be a terrible thing. I mean for one thing, most Muslims in the US would trade the Constitution for Shariah law. They believe the Qur'an should be the highest authority in any government. That scares me.
What "Muslim ban"? There is a temporary visa approval suspension for refugees. Obama did the exact same thing in 2013, and Trump even used Obama's list of countries that Obama created.
These are countries that were selected as security risks by Obama. Not "Muslim". No one has "banned" Muslims. Where did you guys get that term from? It doesn't reflect the truth at all.
1. It is clearly targeted at Muslims, this travel ban.
Obama was responding to a threat. Trump did it out of premeditation.
I'm not saying a travel ban is a bad idea in this case. But to include current visa holders, it looks bad.
I'll say it again. The top 5 Muslim populations are still free to come and go. All 7 temporarily barred nations have a combined population of the #1 nation. 205 million of the 1billion+ Muslims are effected. If it were a Muslim ban why are only 20% barred? Why is egypt, pakistan, and Saudi Arabia still free to travel? What about every other *-stan country?
Not a ban on Muslims. A ban that's only temporary. On war torn nations with supposed state sponsored terrorist and active ISIS camps.
Look I know everyone is in an uproar about the Muslim ban. I think it was unfair to ban people who already have green cards. But I think that issue has been overruled. But as far as preventing refugees from certain countries where the population is mostly Muslim, I'm all for it. The United States has no obligation to continually bring in refugees in the first place, and to ban one specific group because of a religion that 1. Degrades women. 2. Where their book of guidance literally preaches, "killing all the infidels." Might not be a terrible thing. I mean for one thing, most Muslims in the US would trade the Constitution for Shariah law. They believe the Qur'an should be the highest authority in any government. That scares me.
What "Muslim ban"? There is a temporary visa approval suspension for refugees. Obama did the exact same thing in 2013, and Trump even used Obama's list of countries that Obama created.
These are countries that were selected as security risks by Obama. Not "Muslim". No one has "banned" Muslims. Where did you guys get that term from? It doesn't reflect the truth at all.
1. It is clearly targeted at Muslims, this travel ban. 2. It is not quite the same as what Obama did. https://www.google.com/amp/www.ch... Obama was responding to a threat. Trump did it out of premeditation. I'm not saying a travel ban is a bad idea in this case. But to include current visa holders, it looks bad.
Nope.
Here's the facts.
1. Chicago Tribune is in the heart of Chicago, the place with the strictist gun laws, ironically the highest murder rate, and the breeding grounds of the most corrupt officials our country has ever seen, real stars such as Rod Blagoyovich. Not the best place to get a "fact check" from, no?
2. It's temporary.
3. It's for a list of countries developed by Barrack Obama. Obama designated these countries as "security risks". If you're saying this list is "clearly targetted at Muslims", then you're saying that Obama was targetting Muslims when creating this list. You're attaching additional meaning to a list, a list that Homeland Security agrees upon.
4. It was a law passed by Congress.
5. It was signed by Obama.
6. It is true it was a six month ban on just Iran, but more countries have been added to the security risk list since that time.
7. Nobody seemed to give a shit when Obama did the exact same thing. Tribune is trying to make it look like it's not the exact same thing, but it's the exact same law that was passed by Congress and signed by Obama that's being used here. The only difference is that the media spun it to make it look good. This time, they're spinning it to make it look bad, to try and continue the false narrative that Trump is 'racist', even though Muslim is not a race. Homeland Security developed the measures. The Executive Order doesn't even mention any countries. All the work was done already. Exact. Same. Thing.
8. Trump's Executive Order allows for exceptions. They are willing to listen to cases on a case-by-case basis to allow people in anyway.
9. Trump's goal is to improve the vetting process. Is it really any surprise that he would put a temporary ban on countries that were deemed by Homeland Security and Obama himself as the highest security risks?
10. If the highest security risks are -perceived- as targetted at Muslims, do you see a problem here?
I mean for one thing, most Muslims in the US would trade the Constitution for Shariah law. They believe the Qur'an should be the highest authority in any government. That scares me. http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/09/pol...
That is a total load of crap.
I would have to see the actual survey questions and know EXACTLY how the survey was conducted (and who was actually polled) to believe that it is anywhere close to the truth.
If this past election should have taught us ANYTHING it is that political surveys can't be taken at face value.
I'll say it again. The top 5 Muslim populations are still free to come and go. All 7 temporarily barred nations have a combined population of the #1 nation. 205 million of the 1billion+ Muslims are effected. If it were a Muslim ban why are only 20% barred? Why is egypt, pakistan, and Saudi Arabia still free to travel? What about every other *-stan country? Not a ban on Muslims. A ban that's only temporary. On war torn nations with supposed state sponsored terrorist and active ISIS camps.
Because Trump needed a better briefing on how to avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest
When Giuliani says that Trump came to him and very specifically said "I want to ban Muslims. How do I do it legally?" it's pretty clear to say that was his goal.
And I would look into Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia and see which of those countries he has business ties to. Spoiler alert: all of them.
Look I know everyone is in an uproar about the Muslim ban. I think it was unfair to ban people who already have green cards. But I think that issue has been overruled. But as far as preventing refugees from certain countries where the population is mostly Muslim, I'm all for it. The United States has no obligation to continually bring in refugees in the first place, and to ban one specific group because of a religion that 1. Degrades women. 2. Where their book of guidance literally preaches, "killing all the infidels." Might not be a terrible thing. I mean for one thing, most Muslims in the US would trade the Constitution for Shariah law. They believe the Qur'an should be the highest authority in any government. That scares me.
What "Muslim ban"? There is a temporary visa approval suspension for refugees. Obama did the exact same thing in 2013, and Trump even used Obama's list of countries that Obama created.
These are countries that were selected as security risks by Obama. Not "Muslim". No one has "banned" Muslims. Where did you guys get that term from? It doesn't reflect the truth at all.
1. It is clearly targeted at Muslims, this travel ban. 2. It is not quite the same as what Obama did. https://www.google.com/amp/www.chicagotribune.com/news/natio... Obama was responding to a threat. Trump did it out of premeditation. I'm not saying a travel ban is a bad idea in this case. But to include current visa holders, it looks bad.
I'll say it again. The top 5 Muslim populations are still free to come and go. All 7 temporarily barred nations have a combined population of the #1 nation. 205 million of the 1billion+ Muslims are effected. If it were a Muslim ban why are only 20% barred? Why is egypt, pakistan, and Saudi Arabia still free to travel? What about every other *-stan country? Not a ban on Muslims. A ban that's only temporary. On war torn nations with supposed state sponsored terrorist and active ISIS camps.
This green card issue affects very very very very very very few people. And I'll say it again - Trump's Executive Order very clearly states it is willing to make exceptions. There was no oversight. The media's trying to make it seem like thousands of people are in this 'We're stuck in the airport between two countries and can't see our families!' situation -- the situation just like in the Tom Hanks movie, 'The Terminal'. It's just more fake news sir. No oversight.
This green card issue affects very very very very very very few people. And I'll say it again - Trump's Executive Order very clearly states it is willing to make exceptions. There was no oversight. The media's trying to make it seem like thousands of people are in this 'We're stuck in the airport between two countries and can't see our families!' situation -- the situation just like in the Tom Hanks movie, 'The Terminal'. It's just more fake news sir. No oversight.
That's not fake news, at all.
Have you read or heard nothing of this issue since it came up on Friday?
When customs is barring entry to people who were ALREADY ISSUED VISAS, that is a huge lack of foresight on Trump's part.
(let alone the greencard mess that had to be cleared up by a judge)
This green card issue affects very very very very very very few people. And I'll say it again - Trump's Executive Order very clearly states it is willing to make exceptions. There was no oversight. The media's trying to make it seem like thousands of people are in this 'We're stuck in the airport between two countries and can't see our families!' situation -- the situation just like in the Tom Hanks movie, 'The Terminal'. It's just more fake news sir. No oversight.
That's not fake news, at all.
Have you read or heard nothing of this issue since it came up on Friday?
When customs is barring entry to people who were ALREADY ISSUED VISAS, that is a huge lack of foresight on Trump's part.
(let alone the greencard mess that had to be cleared up by a judge)
Can't tell if you're serious or not. I'm saying they're making a mountain out of a molehill. Yes, the media is getting people upset over minor things that affect very few people.
But do you see the double standard here? Obama receives the Peace Prize. Then he drops 100,000 MORE bombs on Muslim countries. What a prince of peace! He's not anti-Muslim at all!
Trump simply sets the exact same visa ban Obama did and suddenly Trump lacks foresight and is anti-Muslim. Come on man. Critical thinking is more important than the propaganda we're being spoonfed.
Can't tell if you're serious or not. I'm saying they're making a mountain out of a molehill. Yes, the media is getting people upset over minor things that affect very few people.
But do you see the double standard here? Obama receives the Peace Prize. Then he drops 100,000 MORE bombs on Muslim countries. What a prince of peace! He's not anti-Muslim at all!
Trump simply sets the exact same visa ban Obama did and suddenly Trump lacks foresight and is anti-Muslim. Come on man. Critical thinking is more important than the propaganda we're being spoonfed.
You are attempting to make Trump's actions sound good and reasonable by comparing them to a standard that shouldn't be held up as a standard in the first place.
And if you don't see the irony in your last comment... whew...
Also, a quick read on some fact checking sites seems to debunk Trump's order aligning with what happened during Obama's tenure.
(with respect to actually blocking visa approvals -- evidently they were simply slowed down due to the govt people involved needing to revet a lot of people and causing a log jam)
I feel like if there was some effective Communist movement in US, many citizens would sympathy them and feel bad for them if they were ridiculed. Weird times we live in and that's coming from someone who was born in post Soviet times. But i can't judge or blame Americans here, we live here in a bubble with Canada and Mexico only. Most people can't even point out major countries on the map if were shown.
Critical thinking involves more than just parroting headlines and wearing a concern-face. It involves actually reading the Executive Order yourself and taking the past into consideration.
Granted you went a step further and checked fact-checking sites, but keep in mind the source for fact-checking is often either paid off or by the same source as the story, or biased despite what they claim.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Purpose. The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.
Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.
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.
Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.
Sec. 3. Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President a report on the results of the review described in subsection (a) of this section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security's determination of the information needed for adjudications and a list of countries that do not provide adequate information, within 30 days of the date of this order. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a copy of the report to the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence.
(c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), 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 (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).
(d) Immediately upon receipt of the report described in subsection (b) of this section regarding the information needed for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request all foreign governments that do not supply such information to start providing such information regarding their nationals within 60 days of notification.
(e) After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this section until compliance occurs.
(f) At any point after submitting the list described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security may submit to the President the names of any additional countries recommended for similar treatment.
(g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.
(h) The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall submit to the President a joint report on the progress in implementing this orderwithin 30 days of the date of this order, a second report within 60 daysof the date of this order, a third report within 90 days of the date of this order, and a fourth report within 120 days of the date of this order.
Sec. 4. Implementing Uniform Screening Standards for All Immigration Programs. (a) The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall implement a program, as part of the adjudication process for immigration benefits, to identify individuals seeking to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of causing harm subsequent to their admission. This program will include the development of a uniform screening standard and procedure, such as in-person interviews; a database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended application forms that include questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to ensure that the applicant is who the applicant claims to be; a process to evaluate the applicant's likelihood of becoming a positively contributing member of society and the applicant's ability to make contributions to the national interest; and a mechanism to assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to commit criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of this directive within 60 days of the date of this order, a second report within 100 days of the date of this order, and a third report within 200 days of the date of this order.
Sec. 5. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days. During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application and adjudication process to determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additional procedures. Refugee applicants who are already in the USRAP process may be admitted upon the initiation and completion of these revised procedures. Upon the date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only for nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.
(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.
(c) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.
(d) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions would be in the national interest.
(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest -- including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.
(f) The Secretary of State shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of the directive in subsection (b) of this section regarding prioritization of claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution within 100 days of the date of this order and shall submit a second report within 200 days of the date of this order.
(g) It is the policy of the executive branch that, to the extent permitted by law and as practicable, State and local jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining the placement or settlement in their jurisdictions of aliens eligible to be admitted to the United States as refugees. To that end, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall examine existing law to determine the extent to which, consistent with applicable law, State and local jurisdictions may have greater involvement in the process of determining the placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and shall devise a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement.
Sec. 6. Rescission of Exercise of Authority Relating to the Terrorism Grounds of Inadmissibility. The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the Attorney General, consider rescinding the exercises of authority in section 212 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182, relating to the terrorism grounds of inadmissibility, as well as any related implementing memoranda.
Sec. 7. Expedited Completion of the Biometric Entry-Exit Tracking System. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking system for all travelers to the United States, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President periodic reports on the progress of the directive contained in subsection (a) of this section. The initial report shall be submitted within 100 days of the date of this order, a second report shall be submitted within 200 days of the date of this order, and a third report shall be submitted within 365 days of the date of this order. Further, the Secretary shall submit a report every 180 days thereafter until the system is fully deployed and operational.
Sec. 8. Visa Interview Security. (a) The Secretary of State shall immediately suspend the Visa Interview Waiver Program and ensure compliance with section 222 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1222, which requires that all individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa undergo an in-person interview, subject to specific statutory exceptions.
(b) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary of State shall immediately expand the Consular Fellows Program, including by substantially increasing the number of Fellows, lengthening or making permanent the period of service, and making language training at the Foreign Service Institute available to Fellows for assignment to posts outside of their area of core linguistic ability, to ensure that non-immigrant visa-interview wait times are not unduly affected.
Sec. 9. Visa Validity Reciprocity. The Secretary of State shall review all nonimmigrant visa reciprocity agreements to ensure that they are, with respect to each visa classification, truly reciprocal insofar as practicable with respect to validity period and fees, as required by sections 221(c) and 281 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(c) and 1351, and other treatment. If a country does not treat United States nationals seeking nonimmigrant visas in a reciprocal manner, the Secretary of State shall adjust the visa validity period, fee schedule, or other treatment to match the treatment of United States nationals by the foreign country, to the extent practicable.
Sec. 10. Transparency and Data Collection. (a) To be more transparent with the American people, and to more effectively implement policies and practices that serve the national interest, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent with applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly available within 180 days, and every 180 days thereafter:
(i) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been charged with terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; or removed from the United States based on terrorism-related activity, affiliation, or material support to a terrorism-related organization, or any other national security reasons since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later;
(ii) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States and engaged in terrorism-related acts, or who have provided material support to terrorism-related organizations in countries that pose a threat to the United States, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and
(iii) information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including honor killings, in the United States by foreign nationals, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and
(iv) any other information relevant to public safety and security as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, including information on the immigration status of foreign nationals charged with major offenses.
(b) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of the date of this order, provide a report on the estimated long-term costs of the USRAP at the Federal, State, and local levels.
Sec. 11. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
And a new tweet from the President of the United States -
"Only 109 people out of 325,000 were detained and held for questioning. Big problems at airports were caused by Delta computer outage, protesters and the tears of Senator Schumer. Secretary Kelly said that all is going well with very few problems."
I know you weren't talking to me (I think), but I personally did read the order in its entirety and I follow current events very closely and read everything with a healthy level of skepticism. I still disagree with the order and I don't think it was a good move. Maybe some people make statements without knowing what they are talking about, but some people do actually use their brains and critically think about matters.
Also, I think it's interesting that the order isn't listed here:
I would have to see the actual survey questions and know EXACTLY how the survey was conducted (and who was actually polled) to believe that it is anywhere close to the truth.
If this past election should have taught us ANYTHING it is that political surveys can't be taken at face value.
You say "it is a total load of crap" and give no evidence against it. Your argument here was "I didn't like what you said so I'm going to just say it's bs even though I have no idea if it's actually true or not even though you posted an article with evidence that suggests it to be true." I paraphrase.
I would have to see the actual survey questions and know EXACTLY how the survey was conducted (and who was actually polled) to believe that it is anywhere close to the truth.
If this past election should have taught us ANYTHING it is that political surveys can't be taken at face value.
You say "it is a total load of crap" and give no evidence against it. Your argument here was "I didn't like what you said so I'm going to just say it's bs even though I have no idea if it's actually true or not even though you posted an article with evidence that suggests it to be true." I paraphrase.
I say it's a total load of crap because it defies reason to the point that much more information would be necessary to find it remotely believable.
I'd take anything that organization says about Muslims with more than a grain of salt.
EDIT TO ADD: and searching the subject only seems to turn up references to the same survey ALL reported view far-right mouthpieces, which makes the source seem dubious, at best.
I know you weren't talking to me (I think), but I personally did read the order in its entirety and I follow current events very closely and read everything with a healthy level of skepticism. I still disagree with the order and I don't think it was a good move. Maybe some people make statements without knowing what they are talking about, but some people do actually use their brains and critically think about matters.
Also, I think it's interesting that the order isn't listed here:
I know you weren't talking to me (I think), but I personally did read the order in its entirety and I follow current events very closely and read everything with a healthy level of skepticism.
Nah, I've got nothing against you. I approached it the same way. If you read it yourself and think it's still a bad move, then more power to you. I respect your opinion.
But I think people need to ask themselves things like, "If this is meant to be anti-Muslim, then why are only seven majority Muslim countries being temporarily suspended? There's fifty-four majority Muslim countries in the World."
Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Iraq are the only ones being temporarily suspended because they are considered "high risk" by Homeland Security. If Trump intended to stop Muslim immigrants entirely, why wouldn't he make the ban permanent? Why wouldn't he block Indonesia, which has the highest Muslim population in the world by far? Or Pakistan, which has the second-highest Muslim population? Or India, which has the third-highest? Or Bangladesh, which has the fourth-highest Muslim population? And so on.
Iran is the first to appear on the top 10 list as the seventh highest Muslim population in the world.
I believe it was revealed that approximately 23% of Syrian refugees sympathize with ISIS. ISIS has made it no secret that they plan to infiltrate societies, breed as quickly as possible, and commit acts of terrorism in the name of holy war. They are currently doing just that in Europe. Fun things such as raping innocent victims, plowing through crowds of people in trucks, and destroying heritage sites.
^You don't have to ban ALL Muslims for what he did to be a bad thing. That is where you are missing the point. Banning any Muslim from any country just because they are Muslim is asinine and not what this country is about or founded on. And yes. That is what he did. And no, Obama did not do that. He banned everyone from one country in response. Not single Muslims out. Nice try though. You want to ban terrorists. Fine. But you can't deduce that based on someones religion and the location they are coming from.
Also add the fact he left out countries he clearly has business interests in and this guy is nothing more than a 1% crook. Shocker.
The amount of propaganda you fall for and what you choose to take as ruth really concerns me.
^You don't have to ban ALL Muslims for what he did to be a bad thing. That is where you are missing the point. Banning any Muslim from any country just because they are Muslim is asinine and not what this country is about or founded on. And yes. That is what he did. And no, Obama did not do that. He banned everyone from one country in response. Not single Muslims out. Nice try though. You want to ban terrorists. Fine. But you can't deduce that based on someones religion and the location they are coming from.
Also add the fact he left out countries he clearly has business interests in and this guy is nothing more than a 1% crook. Shocker.
The amount of propaganda you fall for and what you choose to take as ruth really concerns me.
Hey Magus, I like you but I'm just stating facts. Irrefutable facts. You're assuming motivations that may not even exist and letting propaganda define who the President is. so you simply are preconditioned to see evil. You can't be convinced otherwise. I'm not the propaganda victim here. Sorry man. Chrono Trigger rocks though and I respect your opinion!
^You don't have to ban ALL Muslims for what he did to be a bad thing. That is where you are missing the point. Banning any Muslim from any country just because they are Muslim is asinine and not what this country is about or founded on. And yes. That is what he did. And no, Obama did not do that. He banned everyone from one country in response. Not single Muslims out. Nice try though. You want to ban terrorists. Fine. But you can't deduce that based on someones religion and the location they are coming from.
Also add the fact he left out countries he clearly has business interests in and this guy is nothing more than a 1% crook. Shocker.
The amount of propaganda you fall for and what you choose to take as ruth really concerns me.
Obama didn't even do that, if you read up on the full background of what was being referred to.
I don't have an opinion on whether Trump actually intended this action as a "ban on Muslims", or not.
My negative opinion about it is mostly related to how he looks like he's going off half-cocked about how these sorts of actions make us look to the rest of the world, and the practicalities of things like denying entry to people that already had visas.
It makes the entire thing look impulsive and poorly researched.
Comments
At least courts promptly overruled the issue about green cards, but yes the treatment of already issued visas is going to go down in history as a shameful event in our history, and hopefully books get the record straight on how unpopular this move was and that it is not representative of Americans as a people.
But it is hard to conjure up a past presidential action that has done more damage to our perception in the rest of the world.
Definitely, yes.
Living in Brazil means I have witnessed several extremely dumb and harmful policies put in order by politicians, but this one by Trump still left me dumbfolded.
Heck, back in 2011, Obama put a 6 months "ban" on visa applications (it was more of them being slowed down to a grind instead rather than a nominal ban, but the final effect was pretty much the same) from Iraqi and it wasn't terrible because it didn't affect people who already had a visa. It would be just the same case if Trump had blocked only the issuing of new visas for 120 days to access the situation (source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/29/trumps-facile-claim-that-his-refugee-policy-is-similar-to-obama-in-2011/?utm_term=.3bd00ff17a7c).
Had he done just that, I wouldn't have anything to say about it because it is a fair action.
typical leftist response. No substance. Tell me whats sad. Freedom is sad?
It is sad that people exist who have no respect for the law or the well being of their fellow humankind.
People are living in fear all the time, and more guns = more fear, more gun violence, more killings, not less.
So I do think that there needs to be more regulation than currently exists. The United States has less restriction than any industrialized country in the free world, and cuncurrently has the highest incidence of gun crimes and murder rates. I do not believe this is a coincidence.
Yes it sucks for gun owners, but something needs to be done. And maybe police departments would be better off melting down seized guns for scrap metal as opposed to selling them back to the street for profit.
The United States is not like Australia where you can just ban all guns and everything is fine. Guns have been an integrated into our society since the American Revolution. It has further been integrated with the Civil War. Millions of Americans have hunted, and are continuing to hunt. Since the inception of our country, guns have been apart of it.
If you add restrictive gun laws on the federal level it will only hurt the law abiding citizens. It will cause an outcry, as well. The criminals will always find the guns, no matter what because there are so many guns to be had, legally or illegally, while the citizens obey and either lock away their disasembled gun in a safe that takes a minute to open in order to reassemble so they can even defend themselves, or they can only own glocks and the like.
I look at Chicago as an example. Chicago has the most restrictive gun laws and the highest gun crimes. It's because since the days of Al Capone, you could not find a citizen who didn't own a gun. It's the culture.
Taking a culture that already depends on guns and then restricting it will only have negative effects. You did not have that problem with Australia because guns were not depended upon. What can you even hunt in Australia? Kangaroos? Who the hell would want to hunt there?
Yup freedom is sad. That's definitely it. As a typical leftist I just hate freedom so much. Just beat me with your freedom stick. It'll make me love Toby Keith and Jesus. i swear to your god my skin isn't brown. Otherwise your freedom stick would have no effect
Shut up pumpkin head. Your face already scares me as it is. Pumpkin head. Scared... I'm scared now.
"If the ban were announced with a one week notice, the "bad" would rush into our country during that week. A lot of bad "dudes" out there!"
Proof that this thread belongs on NA.
typical leftist response. No substance. Tell me whats sad. Freedom is sad?
It is sad that people exist who have no respect for the law or the well being of their fellow humankind.
People are living in fear all the time, and more guns = more fear, more gun violence, more killings, not less.
So I do think that there needs to be more regulation than currently exists. The United States has less restriction than any industrialized country in the free world, and cuncurrently has the highest incidence of gun crimes and murder rates. I do not believe this is a coincidence.
Yes it sucks for gun owners, but something needs to be done. And maybe police departments would be better off melting down seized guns for scrap metal as opposed to selling them back to the street for profit.
The United States is not like Australia where you can just ban all guns and everything is fine. Guns have been an integrated into our society since the American Revolution. It has further been integrated with the Civil War. Millions of Americans have hunted, and are continuing to hunt. Since the inception of our country, guns have been apart of it. If you add restrictive gun laws on the federal level it will only hurt the law abiding citizens. It will cause an outcry, as well. The criminals will always find the guns, no matter what because there are so many guns to be had, legally or illegally, while the citizens obey and either lock away their disasembled gun in a safe that takes a minute to open in order to reassemble so they can even defend themselves, or they can only own glocks and the like. I look at Chicago as an example. Chicago has the most restrictive gun laws and the highest gun crimes. It's because since the days of Al Capone, you could not find a citizen who didn't own a gun. It's the culture. Taking a culture that already depends on guns and then restricting it will only have negative effects. You did not have that problem with Australia because guns were not depended upon. What can you even hunt in Australia? Kangaroos? Who the hell would want to hunt there?
I'll second the post upthread that a discussion on gun control will be more pertinent if that issue ACTUALLY COMES UP as something Trump is dealing with.
But for the time being, it has nothing to do with anything.
But as far as preventing refugees from certain countries where the population is mostly Muslim, I'm all for it. The United States has no obligation to continually bring in refugees in the first place, and to ban one specific group because of a religion that
1. Degrades women.
2. Where their book of guidance literally preaches, "killing all the infidels."
Might not be a terrible thing. I mean for one thing, most Muslims in the US would trade the Constitution for Shariah law. They believe the Qur'an should be the highest authority in any government. That scares me.
http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/09/poll-most-u-s-muslims-would-trade-constitution-for-shariah/
Look I know everyone is in an uproar about the Muslim ban. I think it was unfair to ban people who already have green cards. But I think that issue has been overruled. But as far as preventing refugees from certain countries where the population is mostly Muslim, I'm all for it. The United States has no obligation to continually bring in refugees in the first place, and to ban one specific group because of a religion that 1. Degrades women. 2. Where their book of guidance literally preaches, "killing all the infidels." Might not be a terrible thing. I mean for one thing, most Muslims in the US would trade the Constitution for Shariah law. They believe the Qur'an should be the highest authority in any government. That scares me.
What "Muslim ban"? There is a temporary visa approval suspension for refugees. Obama did the exact same thing in 2013, and Trump even used Obama's list of countries that Obama created.
These are countries that were selected as security risks by Obama. Not "Muslim". No one has "banned" Muslims. Where did you guys get that term from? It doesn't reflect the truth at all.
Look I know everyone is in an uproar about the Muslim ban. I think it was unfair to ban people who already have green cards. But I think that issue has been overruled. But as far as preventing refugees from certain countries where the population is mostly Muslim, I'm all for it. The United States has no obligation to continually bring in refugees in the first place, and to ban one specific group because of a religion that 1. Degrades women. 2. Where their book of guidance literally preaches, "killing all the infidels." Might not be a terrible thing. I mean for one thing, most Muslims in the US would trade the Constitution for Shariah law. They believe the Qur'an should be the highest authority in any government. That scares me.
What "Muslim ban"? There is a temporary visa approval suspension for refugees. Obama did the exact same thing in 2013, and Trump even used Obama's list of countries that Obama created.
These are countries that were selected as security risks by Obama. Not "Muslim". No one has "banned" Muslims. Where did you guys get that term from? It doesn't reflect the truth at all.
1. It is clearly targeted at Muslims, this travel ban.
2. It is not quite the same as what Obama did. https://www.google.com/amp/www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-refugee-policy-fact-check-2011-20170129-story,amp.html?client=ms-android-sprint-mvno-us
Obama was responding to a threat. Trump did it out of premeditation.
I'm not saying a travel ban is a bad idea in this case. But to include current visa holders, it looks bad.
Look I know everyone is in an uproar about the Muslim ban. I think it was unfair to ban people who already have green cards. But I think that issue has been overruled. But as far as preventing refugees from certain countries where the population is mostly Muslim, I'm all for it. The United States has no obligation to continually bring in refugees in the first place, and to ban one specific group because of a religion that 1. Degrades women. 2. Where their book of guidance literally preaches, "killing all the infidels." Might not be a terrible thing. I mean for one thing, most Muslims in the US would trade the Constitution for Shariah law. They believe the Qur'an should be the highest authority in any government. That scares me.
What "Muslim ban"? There is a temporary visa approval suspension for refugees. Obama did the exact same thing in 2013, and Trump even used Obama's list of countries that Obama created.
These are countries that were selected as security risks by Obama. Not "Muslim". No one has "banned" Muslims. Where did you guys get that term from? It doesn't reflect the truth at all.
You should reread what actually happened and what has actually been going on since Friday.
Initially, even people with green cards (i.e. already vetted permanent residents) were being barred from entry.
A judge promptly overruled that, and after those people being initially detained and hugely inconvenienced, they were allowed entry.
But since Friday, people who ALREADY HAD VISAS were being barred from entry.
(this includes people who aided our military as translators/interpreters, and who absolutely cannot safely return to their own countries)
That is NOT the same thing as just having a temporary ban on NEW visas.
It is a really short-sighted act on Trump's part.
Look I know everyone is in an uproar about the Muslim ban. I think it was unfair to ban people who already have green cards. But I think that issue has been overruled. But as far as preventing refugees from certain countries where the population is mostly Muslim, I'm all for it. The United States has no obligation to continually bring in refugees in the first place, and to ban one specific group because of a religion that 1. Degrades women. 2. Where their book of guidance literally preaches, "killing all the infidels." Might not be a terrible thing. I mean for one thing, most Muslims in the US would trade the Constitution for Shariah law. They believe the Qur'an should be the highest authority in any government. That scares me.
What "Muslim ban"? There is a temporary visa approval suspension for refugees. Obama did the exact same thing in 2013, and Trump even used Obama's list of countries that Obama created.
These are countries that were selected as security risks by Obama. Not "Muslim". No one has "banned" Muslims. Where did you guys get that term from? It doesn't reflect the truth at all.
1. It is clearly targeted at Muslims, this travel ban.
2. It is not quite the same as what Obama did. https://www.google.com/amp/www.ch...
Obama was responding to a threat. Trump did it out of premeditation.
I'm not saying a travel ban is a bad idea in this case. But to include current visa holders, it looks bad.
I'll say it again. The top 5 Muslim populations are still free to come and go. All 7 temporarily barred nations have a combined population of the #1 nation. 205 million of the 1billion+ Muslims are effected. If it were a Muslim ban why are only 20% barred? Why is egypt, pakistan, and Saudi Arabia still free to travel? What about every other *-stan country?
Not a ban on Muslims. A ban that's only temporary. On war torn nations with supposed state sponsored terrorist and active ISIS camps.
Look I know everyone is in an uproar about the Muslim ban. I think it was unfair to ban people who already have green cards. But I think that issue has been overruled. But as far as preventing refugees from certain countries where the population is mostly Muslim, I'm all for it. The United States has no obligation to continually bring in refugees in the first place, and to ban one specific group because of a religion that 1. Degrades women. 2. Where their book of guidance literally preaches, "killing all the infidels." Might not be a terrible thing. I mean for one thing, most Muslims in the US would trade the Constitution for Shariah law. They believe the Qur'an should be the highest authority in any government. That scares me.
What "Muslim ban"? There is a temporary visa approval suspension for refugees. Obama did the exact same thing in 2013, and Trump even used Obama's list of countries that Obama created.
These are countries that were selected as security risks by Obama. Not "Muslim". No one has "banned" Muslims. Where did you guys get that term from? It doesn't reflect the truth at all.
1. It is clearly targeted at Muslims, this travel ban. 2. It is not quite the same as what Obama did. https://www.google.com/amp/www.ch... Obama was responding to a threat. Trump did it out of premeditation. I'm not saying a travel ban is a bad idea in this case. But to include current visa holders, it looks bad.
Nope.
Here's the facts.
1. Chicago Tribune is in the heart of Chicago, the place with the strictist gun laws, ironically the highest murder rate, and the breeding grounds of the most corrupt officials our country has ever seen, real stars such as Rod Blagoyovich. Not the best place to get a "fact check" from, no?
2. It's temporary.
3. It's for a list of countries developed by Barrack Obama. Obama designated these countries as "security risks". If you're saying this list is "clearly targetted at Muslims", then you're saying that Obama was targetting Muslims when creating this list. You're attaching additional meaning to a list, a list that Homeland Security agrees upon.
4. It was a law passed by Congress.
5. It was signed by Obama.
6. It is true it was a six month ban on just Iran, but more countries have been added to the security risk list since that time.
7. Nobody seemed to give a shit when Obama did the exact same thing. Tribune is trying to make it look like it's not the exact same thing, but it's the exact same law that was passed by Congress and signed by Obama that's being used here. The only difference is that the media spun it to make it look good. This time, they're spinning it to make it look bad, to try and continue the false narrative that Trump is 'racist', even though Muslim is not a race. Homeland Security developed the measures. The Executive Order doesn't even mention any countries. All the work was done already. Exact. Same. Thing.
8. Trump's Executive Order allows for exceptions. They are willing to listen to cases on a case-by-case basis to allow people in anyway.
9. Trump's goal is to improve the vetting process. Is it really any surprise that he would put a temporary ban on countries that were deemed by Homeland Security and Obama himself as the highest security risks?
10. If the highest security risks are -perceived- as targetted at Muslims, do you see a problem here?
I mean for one thing, most Muslims in the US would trade the Constitution for Shariah law. They believe the Qur'an should be the highest authority in any government. That scares me. http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/09/pol...
That is a total load of crap.
I would have to see the actual survey questions and know EXACTLY how the survey was conducted (and who was actually polled) to believe that it is anywhere close to the truth.
If this past election should have taught us ANYTHING it is that political surveys can't be taken at face value.
I'll say it again. The top 5 Muslim populations are still free to come and go. All 7 temporarily barred nations have a combined population of the #1 nation. 205 million of the 1billion+ Muslims are effected. If it were a Muslim ban why are only 20% barred? Why is egypt, pakistan, and Saudi Arabia still free to travel? What about every other *-stan country? Not a ban on Muslims. A ban that's only temporary. On war torn nations with supposed state sponsored terrorist and active ISIS camps.
Because Trump needed a better briefing on how to avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest
And I would look into Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia and see which of those countries he has business ties to. Spoiler alert: all of them.
Look I know everyone is in an uproar about the Muslim ban. I think it was unfair to ban people who already have green cards. But I think that issue has been overruled. But as far as preventing refugees from certain countries where the population is mostly Muslim, I'm all for it. The United States has no obligation to continually bring in refugees in the first place, and to ban one specific group because of a religion that 1. Degrades women. 2. Where their book of guidance literally preaches, "killing all the infidels." Might not be a terrible thing. I mean for one thing, most Muslims in the US would trade the Constitution for Shariah law. They believe the Qur'an should be the highest authority in any government. That scares me.
What "Muslim ban"? There is a temporary visa approval suspension for refugees. Obama did the exact same thing in 2013, and Trump even used Obama's list of countries that Obama created.
These are countries that were selected as security risks by Obama. Not "Muslim". No one has "banned" Muslims. Where did you guys get that term from? It doesn't reflect the truth at all.
1. It is clearly targeted at Muslims, this travel ban. 2. It is not quite the same as what Obama did. https://www.google.com/amp/www.chicagotribune.com/news/natio... Obama was responding to a threat. Trump did it out of premeditation. I'm not saying a travel ban is a bad idea in this case. But to include current visa holders, it looks bad.
I'll say it again. The top 5 Muslim populations are still free to come and go. All 7 temporarily barred nations have a combined population of the #1 nation. 205 million of the 1billion+ Muslims are effected. If it were a Muslim ban why are only 20% barred? Why is egypt, pakistan, and Saudi Arabia still free to travel? What about every other *-stan country? Not a ban on Muslims. A ban that's only temporary. On war torn nations with supposed state sponsored terrorist and active ISIS camps.
This green card issue affects very very very very very very few people. And I'll say it again - Trump's Executive Order very clearly states it is willing to make exceptions. There was no oversight. The media's trying to make it seem like thousands of people are in this 'We're stuck in the airport between two countries and can't see our families!' situation -- the situation just like in the Tom Hanks movie, 'The Terminal'. It's just more fake news sir. No oversight.
This green card issue affects very very very very very very few people. And I'll say it again - Trump's Executive Order very clearly states it is willing to make exceptions. There was no oversight. The media's trying to make it seem like thousands of people are in this 'We're stuck in the airport between two countries and can't see our families!' situation -- the situation just like in the Tom Hanks movie, 'The Terminal'. It's just more fake news sir. No oversight.
That's not fake news, at all.
Have you read or heard nothing of this issue since it came up on Friday?
When customs is barring entry to people who were ALREADY ISSUED VISAS, that is a huge lack of foresight on Trump's part.
(let alone the greencard mess that had to be cleared up by a judge)
This green card issue affects very very very very very very few people. And I'll say it again - Trump's Executive Order very clearly states it is willing to make exceptions. There was no oversight. The media's trying to make it seem like thousands of people are in this 'We're stuck in the airport between two countries and can't see our families!' situation -- the situation just like in the Tom Hanks movie, 'The Terminal'. It's just more fake news sir. No oversight.
That's not fake news, at all.
Have you read or heard nothing of this issue since it came up on Friday?
When customs is barring entry to people who were ALREADY ISSUED VISAS, that is a huge lack of foresight on Trump's part.
(let alone the greencard mess that had to be cleared up by a judge)
Can't tell if you're serious or not. I'm saying they're making a mountain out of a molehill. Yes, the media is getting people upset over minor things that affect very few people.
But do you see the double standard here? Obama receives the Peace Prize. Then he drops 100,000 MORE bombs on Muslim countries. What a prince of peace! He's not anti-Muslim at all!
Trump simply sets the exact same visa ban Obama did and suddenly Trump lacks foresight and is anti-Muslim. Come on man. Critical thinking is more important than the propaganda we're being spoonfed.
Can't tell if you're serious or not. I'm saying they're making a mountain out of a molehill. Yes, the media is getting people upset over minor things that affect very few people.
But do you see the double standard here? Obama receives the Peace Prize. Then he drops 100,000 MORE bombs on Muslim countries. What a prince of peace! He's not anti-Muslim at all!
Trump simply sets the exact same visa ban Obama did and suddenly Trump lacks foresight and is anti-Muslim. Come on man. Critical thinking is more important than the propaganda we're being spoonfed.
You are attempting to make Trump's actions sound good and reasonable by comparing them to a standard that shouldn't be held up as a standard in the first place.
And if you don't see the irony in your last comment... whew...
Also, a quick read on some fact checking sites seems to debunk Trump's order aligning with what happened during Obama's tenure.
(with respect to actually blocking visa approvals -- evidently they were simply slowed down due to the govt people involved needing to revet a lot of people and causing a log jam)
Granted you went a step further and checked fact-checking sites, but keep in mind the source for fact-checking is often either paid off or by the same source as the story, or biased despite what they claim.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html?_r=0
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Purpose. The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.
Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.
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.
Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.
Sec. 3. Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President a report on the results of the review described in subsection (a) of this section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security's determination of the information needed for adjudications and a list of countries that do not provide adequate information, within 30 days of the date of this order. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a copy of the report to the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence.
(c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), 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 (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).
(d) Immediately upon receipt of the report described in subsection (b) of this section regarding the information needed for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request all foreign governments that do not supply such information to start providing such information regarding their nationals within 60 days of notification.
(e) After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this section until compliance occurs.
(f) At any point after submitting the list described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security may submit to the President the names of any additional countries recommended for similar treatment.
(g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.
(h) The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall submit to the President a joint report on the progress in implementing this orderwithin 30 days of the date of this order, a second report within 60 daysof the date of this order, a third report within 90 days of the date of this order, and a fourth report within 120 days of the date of this order.
Sec. 4. Implementing Uniform Screening Standards for All Immigration Programs. (a) The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall implement a program, as part of the adjudication process for immigration benefits, to identify individuals seeking to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of causing harm subsequent to their admission. This program will include the development of a uniform screening standard and procedure, such as in-person interviews; a database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended application forms that include questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to ensure that the applicant is who the applicant claims to be; a process to evaluate the applicant's likelihood of becoming a positively contributing member of society and the applicant's ability to make contributions to the national interest; and a mechanism to assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to commit criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of this directive within 60 days of the date of this order, a second report within 100 days of the date of this order, and a third report within 200 days of the date of this order.
Sec. 5. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days. During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application and adjudication process to determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additional procedures. Refugee applicants who are already in the USRAP process may be admitted upon the initiation and completion of these revised procedures. Upon the date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only for nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.
(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.
(c) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.
(d) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions would be in the national interest.
(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest -- including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.
(f) The Secretary of State shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of the directive in subsection (b) of this section regarding prioritization of claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution within 100 days of the date of this order and shall submit a second report within 200 days of the date of this order.
(g) It is the policy of the executive branch that, to the extent permitted by law and as practicable, State and local jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining the placement or settlement in their jurisdictions of aliens eligible to be admitted to the United States as refugees. To that end, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall examine existing law to determine the extent to which, consistent with applicable law, State and local jurisdictions may have greater involvement in the process of determining the placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and shall devise a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement.
Sec. 6. Rescission of Exercise of Authority Relating to the Terrorism Grounds of Inadmissibility. The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the Attorney General, consider rescinding the exercises of authority in section 212 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182, relating to the terrorism grounds of inadmissibility, as well as any related implementing memoranda.
Sec. 7. Expedited Completion of the Biometric Entry-Exit Tracking System. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking system for all travelers to the United States, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President periodic reports on the progress of the directive contained in subsection (a) of this section. The initial report shall be submitted within 100 days of the date of this order, a second report shall be submitted within 200 days of the date of this order, and a third report shall be submitted within 365 days of the date of this order. Further, the Secretary shall submit a report every 180 days thereafter until the system is fully deployed and operational.
Sec. 8. Visa Interview Security. (a) The Secretary of State shall immediately suspend the Visa Interview Waiver Program and ensure compliance with section 222 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1222, which requires that all individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa undergo an in-person interview, subject to specific statutory exceptions.
(b) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary of State shall immediately expand the Consular Fellows Program, including by substantially increasing the number of Fellows, lengthening or making permanent the period of service, and making language training at the Foreign Service Institute available to Fellows for assignment to posts outside of their area of core linguistic ability, to ensure that non-immigrant visa-interview wait times are not unduly affected.
Sec. 9. Visa Validity Reciprocity. The Secretary of State shall review all nonimmigrant visa reciprocity agreements to ensure that they are, with respect to each visa classification, truly reciprocal insofar as practicable with respect to validity period and fees, as required by sections 221(c) and 281 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(c) and 1351, and other treatment. If a country does not treat United States nationals seeking nonimmigrant visas in a reciprocal manner, the Secretary of State shall adjust the visa validity period, fee schedule, or other treatment to match the treatment of United States nationals by the foreign country, to the extent practicable.
Sec. 10. Transparency and Data Collection. (a) To be more transparent with the American people, and to more effectively implement policies and practices that serve the national interest, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent with applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly available within 180 days, and every 180 days thereafter:
(i) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been charged with terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; or removed from the United States based on terrorism-related activity, affiliation, or material support to a terrorism-related organization, or any other national security reasons since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later;
(ii) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States and engaged in terrorism-related acts, or who have provided material support to terrorism-related organizations in countries that pose a threat to the United States, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and
(iii) information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including honor killings, in the United States by foreign nationals, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and
(iv) any other information relevant to public safety and security as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, including information on the immigration status of foreign nationals charged with major offenses.
(b) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of the date of this order, provide a report on the estimated long-term costs of the USRAP at the Federal, State, and local levels.
Sec. 11. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
And a new tweet from the President of the United States -
"Only 109 people out of 325,000 were detained and held for questioning. Big problems at airports were caused by Delta computer outage, protesters and the tears of Senator Schumer. Secretary Kelly said that all is going well with very few problems."
Also, I think it's interesting that the order isn't listed here:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/executive-orders
I mean for one thing, most Muslims in the US would trade the Constitution for Shariah law. They believe the Qur'an should be the highest authority in any government. That scares me. http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/09/poll-most-u-s-muslims-would-tr...
That is a total load of crap.
I would have to see the actual survey questions and know EXACTLY how the survey was conducted (and who was actually polled) to believe that it is anywhere close to the truth.
If this past election should have taught us ANYTHING it is that political surveys can't be taken at face value.
You say "it is a total load of crap" and give no evidence against it. Your argument here was "I didn't like what you said so I'm going to just say it's bs even though I have no idea if it's actually true or not even though you posted an article with evidence that suggests it to be true." I paraphrase.
I mean for one thing, most Muslims in the US would trade the Constitution for Shariah law. They believe the Qur'an should be the highest authority in any government. That scares me. http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/09/poll-most-u-s-muslims-would-tr...
That is a total load of crap.
I would have to see the actual survey questions and know EXACTLY how the survey was conducted (and who was actually polled) to believe that it is anywhere close to the truth.
If this past election should have taught us ANYTHING it is that political surveys can't be taken at face value.
You say "it is a total load of crap" and give no evidence against it. Your argument here was "I didn't like what you said so I'm going to just say it's bs even though I have no idea if it's actually true or not even though you posted an article with evidence that suggests it to be true." I paraphrase.
I say it's a total load of crap because it defies reason to the point that much more information would be necessary to find it remotely believable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldNetDaily
I'd take anything that organization says about Muslims with more than a grain of salt.
EDIT TO ADD: and searching the subject only seems to turn up references to the same survey ALL reported view far-right mouthpieces, which makes the source seem dubious, at best.
2nd EDIT: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/23/nationwide-poll-of-us-muslims-shows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/
These guys are totally biased (to where they want the survey to support their predrawn conclusions), BUT paragraph #1:
"according to a new nationwide online survey of 600 muslims..."
600 muslims... on an online survey... conducted on behalf of "Center for Security Policy"
#1 totally insufficient sample size
#2 method that introduces significant polling bias
#3 survey bought-and-paid for by a conspiracy theory generator of a "think tank"...
That is a TOTAL LOAD OF HORSE SHIT to try and draw a meaningful conclusion from.
I know you weren't talking to me (I think), but I personally did read the order in its entirety and I follow current events very closely and read everything with a healthy level of skepticism. I still disagree with the order and I don't think it was a good move. Maybe some people make statements without knowing what they are talking about, but some people do actually use their brains and critically think about matters.
Also, I think it's interesting that the order isn't listed here:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefi...
He was evidently attempting to diminish what I was saying by making the (patently absurd) assertion that I needed a lecture on critical thinking.
I know you weren't talking to me (I think), but I personally did read the order in its entirety and I follow current events very closely and read everything with a healthy level of skepticism.
Nah, I've got nothing against you. I approached it the same way. If you read it yourself and think it's still a bad move, then more power to you. I respect your opinion.
But I think people need to ask themselves things like, "If this is meant to be anti-Muslim, then why are only seven majority Muslim countries being temporarily suspended? There's fifty-four majority Muslim countries in the World."
Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Iraq are the only ones being temporarily suspended because they are considered "high risk" by Homeland Security. If Trump intended to stop Muslim immigrants entirely, why wouldn't he make the ban permanent? Why wouldn't he block Indonesia, which has the highest Muslim population in the world by far? Or Pakistan, which has the second-highest Muslim population? Or India, which has the third-highest? Or Bangladesh, which has the fourth-highest Muslim population? And so on.
Iran is the first to appear on the top 10 list as the seventh highest Muslim population in the world.
I believe it was revealed that approximately 23% of Syrian refugees sympathize with ISIS. ISIS has made it no secret that they plan to infiltrate societies, breed as quickly as possible, and commit acts of terrorism in the name of holy war. They are currently doing just that in Europe. Fun things such as raping innocent victims, plowing through crowds of people in trucks, and destroying heritage sites.
Also add the fact he left out countries he clearly has business interests in and this guy is nothing more than a 1% crook. Shocker.
The amount of propaganda you fall for and what you choose to take as ruth really concerns me.
^You don't have to ban ALL Muslims for what he did to be a bad thing. That is where you are missing the point. Banning any Muslim from any country just because they are Muslim is asinine and not what this country is about or founded on. And yes. That is what he did. And no, Obama did not do that. He banned everyone from one country in response. Not single Muslims out. Nice try though. You want to ban terrorists. Fine. But you can't deduce that based on someones religion and the location they are coming from.
Also add the fact he left out countries he clearly has business interests in and this guy is nothing more than a 1% crook. Shocker.
The amount of propaganda you fall for and what you choose to take as ruth really concerns me.
Hey Magus, I like you but I'm just stating facts. Irrefutable facts. You're assuming motivations that may not even exist and letting propaganda define who the President is. so you simply are preconditioned to see evil. You can't be convinced otherwise. I'm not the propaganda victim here. Sorry man. Chrono Trigger rocks though and I respect your opinion!
^You don't have to ban ALL Muslims for what he did to be a bad thing. That is where you are missing the point. Banning any Muslim from any country just because they are Muslim is asinine and not what this country is about or founded on. And yes. That is what he did. And no, Obama did not do that. He banned everyone from one country in response. Not single Muslims out. Nice try though. You want to ban terrorists. Fine. But you can't deduce that based on someones religion and the location they are coming from.
Also add the fact he left out countries he clearly has business interests in and this guy is nothing more than a 1% crook. Shocker.
The amount of propaganda you fall for and what you choose to take as ruth really concerns me.
Obama didn't even do that, if you read up on the full background of what was being referred to.
I don't have an opinion on whether Trump actually intended this action as a "ban on Muslims", or not.
My negative opinion about it is mostly related to how he looks like he's going off half-cocked about how these sorts of actions make us look to the rest of the world, and the practicalities of things like denying entry to people that already had visas.
It makes the entire thing look impulsive and poorly researched.