Trump's new immigration ban ... again rediculous BS!

There was never any ambiguity about the power of the President to suspend entry to a class of individuals --- any class of individuals. The out of control anti-constitution District Court Judge upheld an injunction until the merits of the case could be determined. The circuit court upheld the injunction on appeal. The actual merits of the first EO were never tested. Here's the law --- there is absolutely no ambiguity as to what it says or what it means.

U.S. Code › Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter II › Part II › § 1182 Inadmissible aliens
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Companies who use foreign labor and employ foreigners with Green Cards got caught by the EO. In case you weren't paying attention, we learned from the exercise that the jobs Americans supposedly don't want to do that justify using foreign labor and illegal immigration include tech jobs like web development.

 

OK ... but you know that McCarran-Walter Act was, however, in a majority of its provisions suspended by the Immigration and Naturalization Services Act of 1965 and only in March 2003 under Bush the terror aspect in meaning of that terror suspicious persons are not allowed to enter or those inside the USA if nto US citizen can be deported?

The problem is that this "war against terror" became only a phrase where everything uncomfortable and hostile is marked with. Bush hated Saddam and so his illegal attack in 2003 was a "war against terror" too for example.
The major problem is that Trump reasoned this again with the lame terror danger phrase what is ... as now uncountable told and shown by facts ... in reality only nonsense and helps nothing against Islamic terror threat!

Again:
Only 1 of all Islamic Terrorists of all attacks in the USA since 9/11 comes from one of these countries and even this 1 case is questionable to be really a terror act (not my rating) ... but non of these countries form where they are coming (aside these still born in the US or being converted US people) is on the list, simply because their often governing more or less rated "regimes" are friends of the USA as Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt. and in case of Iran the nonsense is crystal clear, because this ban will not hinder any evil agent / spy of the Iranian secret service to enter and if Hezbollah was target, then they took with Iran the wrong country, because Hezbollah = Lebanon and not Iran!

 

It wins certain peace of mind for some subsets of the American People, if nothing else. But there is no direct Iranian threat to the US.

Putting a country that sponsors terrorism on the travel list is convenient for other political pressure reasons. The fact they have been on the sponsored terrorism list doesn't mean they are a direct threat to America, but certainly to our allies. Denying anyone dealing or travel with the US when they sponsor terrorism against our allies is wholly political.

 

I posted the current form and cited the link that contained amendments. Reagan, GW Bush and Obama all invoked the statute as I posted it.

Obama singled out the same 7 countries with no push back to deny visa waivers --- the 7 countries that Trump later identified in his travel ban. Trump didn't have the benefit of his SOS at the time he issued his EO because of extreme partisan attacks against the US by Senate Democrats and Independents who caucus with them. In 2018, we will have the opportunity to solve the problems that caused the incomplete staffing of the administration since 25 of those enemies of the state will be begging for our votes.

 

Correct!
Sure, USA and Iran are ... as we all know ... since 1979 hostile and both sides gave each other since then enough reasons to back these hostilities (no, not only the Iran was evil part if having a neutral view on facts). Since a very long time is the Iran no direct threat to the USA and even the by Iran sponsored Hezbollah in Lebanon is it not.
But out of these deep burned in hostilities against Iran on US side (honestly, if US media reports anything about Iran, what was "positive" of these reports?) it will please them to see this country on this silly list.

Sure and correct, it is pure political. But what disturbs me and many other is that Trump reasoned this with the terror threat and it is clearly shown that this is not the case by facts!
No one denies the right of the USA to protect them against any threat and so against Islamic terror too, but then should something being done what this prevents really and not something what makes only rumble tumble in media to please the Trumponians and not more.
Problem is that these necessary steps are lesser spectacular and much hidden from publicity as they are in the past and in practice, simply because secret. And anyone who thinks that even a total ban against any Muslim country of this planet will make the USA full safe is wrong ... it will maybe reduce the threat, but not eliminate.

 

Sorry ... Obama set up an entry stop against Iraq for some time due and right to the time when ISIS was short before to overrun and conquer complete Iraq. But he never set a ban against all these 7 countries.
People do obviously not understand the difference of being on this ban list and being on a watching list of potential dangerous countries ... on which were and are still other and Non-Islamic countries too. Obama has lifted visa-free access to these 7 countries, but he has not set them on a ban list like Trump. But again and again the Trump followers try to say that the list of Obama is ... what is wrong. Why did not Trump leave it with the measure ordered by Obama in February 2016, but must not put one on it? That is the point!

 

It's kinda like the embargo on Cuba. But with people. There was no direct "threat" from goods from Cuba either.

Flow of people that can collaborate for terrorism [or factors therein] within the US can still be considered a threat, even if they don't actually "blow people up". There is certainly more to terror than the final acts that we eventually see. However, since they have been on a "terrorism" list (even by association) for many years, I see no reason not to exclude them from this list either. Maybe there is more to it than we are "allowed" to know, maybe Trump doesn't like Iran. Certainly, Iran is involved with terrorism from what we apparently know... so there is no reason to "not" be on the list really. I don't particularly follow Trump on this issue, but I also don't care that much either.

A reduction of any kind would be a win I guess. Nothing is likely to eliminate it.

 

It is ... Cuban cigars cause cancer!

Anyone who wants to enter the US has to be checked thoroughly and if coming form a dangerous country or such one which is classified by the US, then more as usual. The possibilities of the US services to make this are given (look on latest WikiLeaks issue to have many examples about possibilities they have). Also ... let us have a male form Syria with his family, being Christian and fleeing from Syria due to his religion because both, ISIS and Al Nusra (or whatever terror group else) will kill him due to his believe ... will you send him back simply because coming from Syria and not giving save harbor. Sure, some people will answer he can go to other countries ... but such BS aside did some people answer that no one can know if he is really Christian. Really?
You can ... keyword: circumcision ... not only Jews are, but Muslims too and all Christians are not! So if the male has circumcision, then are some serious questions uprising if being really Christian, but if he has circumcision, then he is for sure. No Islamic terrorist has no circumcision, simply this is a no go for their sick thinking!

Agreed!

 

As soon as lefties called Trump's action a 'Muslim Ban', they established the point that it was only OK to single out those countries when Obama did it. When Trump did it, it became an Islamophobic action, whatever it was. The point is that it's OK not to take you seriously, because you are only about partisan politics.

 

And that on the list of Obama were more countries which are not Muslim and the point is that Trump followers failed here totally to say that list is Obamas job.

 

Throw out the Irish you say? Keep talking...you're starting to make sense...

 

8% seems like a lot.

 

Ahh...that explains everything.

 

The first EO that Trump signed had a provision for this EXACTLY, which people used as ammunition for the "it's a muslim ban" argument, and likely a factor as to why it was suspended and hence why removed this time.

 

A significant number of one-third of the world's population, the Muslim part, supports terrorism so there are many millions of them.. It's time you learned this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_toward_terrorism

 

English is not your first language, is it?

 

No ... but is this important?

 

Over 2,000,000,000 people are Muslims and depending to your own told source in average 5-6% tell it could be often justified to use terror. How many of these 6% are active terrorists and willing to support them and to make terror acts by their own or ´can be rated to be rat piper who brain wash people to their sick believings?

You may ask what about these part is who is more or less partially willing to accept. Well, counter questions: How many Americans say that it is justified to torture people and doing evil things like water boarding. Torture is by any US law forbidden ...
How many US people think that it is OK eliminate the own constitution and say that freedom of religion in 1st amendment is only given to all who are not Muslims and so kick all Muslims out?
How many people believe Holocaust against Jews was a lie ... and more, how many people think that 6,000,000 Jews were not enough and the job of Nazis must be finished?

You have always and everywhere about 5% idiots and extremists running around at all topics and issues ... and about 10 - 25% people who think that some radical things are maybe necessary to solve problems they think are existing.


B U T ... VERY INTERESTING IS THIS HERE:

(17 vs 83) 83% of Muslims in Germany believed it could never be justified, 6% believed it could be justified rarely, 6% sometimes, and 1% thought it could be justified often.

So Yes ... Germany will be overrun with its 6,5% Muslims (including all Muslim refugees) in population by Islamists who wants Sharia and back terror and want to make out of Germany a caliphate, because all 6,5% are Islamists and terrorists. Yeah ... your won source refutes it!

 

You seem to wander from the point but here are the results from Pew and you can do the percentages of Muslim support, out of your 2,000,000,000, for yourself. It means there are a lot of Muslims who are interested in supporting or sympathizing with terrorists, even in the US.

A 2013 Pew Research Center poll asked Muslims around the world whether attacks on civilians were justified.

Globally 72% of Muslims said violence against civilians is never justified, and in the US, 81% of Muslims opposed such violence. About 14% of Muslims in the nations surveyed (and 8% of Muslims in the US) said violence against civilians is "often" or "sometimes" justified. 26% of Muslims in Bangladesh believe attacks are either somewhat justified or often justified, 18% in Malaysia, 7% in Iraq, 15% in Jordan, 29% in Egypt, 39% in Afghanistan and 40% in the Palestinian territories.[33][34][35] The survey did not include some Muslim nations, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Yemen, Syria, and Libya, but did include densely populated Muslim countries such as Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Nigeria and Indonesia.[36] According to a 2007 poll conducted by the PolicyExchange think tank in Britain, nearly 60% said they would prefer to live under British law, while 37% of 16- to 24-year-olds said they would prefer sharia law, against 17% of those over 55.[37] Also 36% of 16- to 24-year-olds British Muslims believed that those converting to another religion should be executed. Less than a fifth of those over 55 think so.[38]

And the other 31%? Seems then that about 3 out of every 10 Muslims entering the US don't feel that strongly about fighting terrorism. You like those odds?

Foreigners are not subject to the US Constitution. It was designed in America for Americans and was never an international document.