Calls To Ban Muslims From Entering the U.S. Are Offensive And Unconstitutional

[EverCurious]

A bunch of the countries on the list sent terrorists into Europe.

 

[ninja007]

90 FRIKKING DAYS. 3 MONTHS.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Trump's executive order is not unconstitutional on the basis which officials are chosen to hold executive levels of government, called "to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign as well as domestic, to bear faith and swear allegiance to the same". Part of the role of government is clearly written to provide for that common defense of a nation. Given that our nation suffered an attack on American soil through 9-11, against a group professing to believe in an extreme Islamic view of faith, and that such extremists reside in regions to which immigrants are also seeking entry into the United States. Therefore, such actions to defend this nation "against all enemies foreign" fits within the structure and duty outlined under the Constitution, and with that oath of office.

The proper and more accurate question to be asked is this:
Should we allow any immigrant entry on the basis of their desire to become Americans OVER the security and safety of those citizens who already reside in the United States that our government is actually sworn to protect?

The Precedent established by

LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR VIETNAMESE ASYLUM SEEKERS; Thua Van Le;
Em Van Vo; Thu Hoa Thi Dang; Truc Hoa Thi Vo, Appellants
v.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, et al., Appellees

shows that the Prez must allege and prove that those 7 countries constitute an emergent danger to the US. But those countries have never caused the US any problem.

Saudi Arabia, the UAE have. Yet amazingly those countries are NOT on the list.

The EO is unconstitutional.

The NY Judge's order will be upheld by the 2nd Cir, Trump can appeal but a 4-4 SCOTUS tie will allow the 2nd Circuit decision to be the law of the land.


.

France had already suffered an attack from extremists who exploited the refugee issue, The FBI director also has admitted problems with the vetting system, and does not have confidence that it is adequate to meet with the concerns of safeguarding the American people from infiltrating terrorists that hope to take advantage of the refugee crisis.

FBI Director James Comey added in congressional testimony last month that “a number of people who were of serious concern” slipped through the screening of Iraq War refugees, including two arrested on terrorism-related charges. “There’s no doubt that was the product of a less than excellent vetting,” he said.

Although Comey said the process has since “improved dramatically,” Syrian refugees will be even harder to check because, unlike in Iraq, U.S. soldiers have not been on the ground collecting information on the local population. “If we don’t know much about somebody, there won’t be anything in our data,” he said. “I can’t sit here and offer anybody an absolute assurance that there’s no risk associated with this.”

Senior Obama officials have warned of challenges in screening refugees from Syria

The ban is not even an attack on the basis of religion, as there are 6 nations with a higher Muslim population where immigrants will not be prevented entry.

Nations with highest Muslim Population
- Indonesia 209,120,000
- India 176,200,000
- Pakistan 167,410,000
- Bangladesh 134,430,000
- Nigeria 77,300,000
- Egypt 76,990,000


So (1) there is no religious discrimination that can be proven (2) safe guards to vett refugees in a region that is KNOWN by central intelligence to have terrorist strongholds or sympathizers also confirmed through the Obama administration, is admitted to be inadequate (3) there is no proof provided to confirm those regions are NOT found to have terrorist strongholds / activity, or
do not to have governments that are opposed to supporting terrorist groups. Based on the facts above, there is nothing found to support a solid case that the EO is unconstitutional. Whether the nation is to accept a large amount of refugees or not is ultimately under the discretion of Congress and the President under the current administration, based on the intelligence they have received. Just as the case of illegal immigration and the enforcement of law is the duty of the extecutuve and legislative, not the place for the judicial branch to take on the role of establishing law to adhere to a preferred ideological view of the current time ..but solely to interpret its original meaning within the context it was originally written.

There is not a single non-Muslim detained at an American airport.
The new president gave his word that all Muslims will be stopped from entering the USA.

He has not stated, nor does the EO state, that this is a ban on all Muslims. Let me know when you can provide some linked facts.

Surely it has not escaped you that it is the intention of Donald Trump to stop all Muslims from getting into the USA. Do you not have a TV, I wonder.



As for the text of the Executive Order, we know the intentions of Donald Trump and the White House staff are trying to explain what the the heck it means.

I don't entertain ideological spin. I have listed six nations that have a Muslim population much greater than those 7 he has placed a temporary suspension on to improve the vetting process. I don't see any linked proof that those immigrants will be denied entry in your post, now do I? Even the FBI director is quoted as admitting the process in inadequate to be effective in determining if an individual has terrorist intentions. Care to make an excuse for that little linked fact? It would appear, based on your response, that you don't take. our national security seriously. You would think liberals like you would learn from the lessons of France. Let me know when you can actually PROVE, any of those nations I listed are also among those temporarily banned entry from the United States. Let's see if we can separate the bullshit from hard fact.

 

[Eloy]

The Precedent established by

LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR VIETNAMESE ASYLUM SEEKERS; Thua Van Le;
Em Van Vo; Thu Hoa Thi Dang; Truc Hoa Thi Vo, Appellants
v.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, et al., Appellees

shows that the Prez must allege and prove that those 7 countries constitute an emergent danger to the US. But those countries have never caused the US any problem.

Saudi Arabia, the UAE have. Yet amazingly those countries are NOT on the list.

The EO is unconstitutional.

The NY Judge's order will be upheld by the 2nd Cir, Trump can appeal but a 4-4 SCOTUS tie will allow the 2nd Circuit decision to be the law of the land.


.

France had already suffered an attack from extremists who exploited the refugee issue, The FBI director also has admitted problems with the vetting system, and does not have confidence that it is adequate to meet with the concerns of safeguarding the American people from infiltrating terrorists that hope to take advantage of the refugee crisis.

FBI Director James Comey added in congressional testimony last month that “a number of people who were of serious concern” slipped through the screening of Iraq War refugees, including two arrested on terrorism-related charges. “There’s no doubt that was the product of a less than excellent vetting,” he said.

Although Comey said the process has since “improved dramatically,” Syrian refugees will be even harder to check because, unlike in Iraq, U.S. soldiers have not been on the ground collecting information on the local population. “If we don’t know much about somebody, there won’t be anything in our data,” he said. “I can’t sit here and offer anybody an absolute assurance that there’s no risk associated with this.”

Senior Obama officials have warned of challenges in screening refugees from Syria

The ban is not even an attack on the basis of religion, as there are 6 nations with a higher Muslim population where immigrants will not be prevented entry.

Nations with highest Muslim Population
- Indonesia 209,120,000
- India 176,200,000
- Pakistan 167,410,000
- Bangladesh 134,430,000
- Nigeria 77,300,000
- Egypt 76,990,000


So (1) there is no religious discrimination that can be proven (2) safe guards to vett refugees in a region that is KNOWN by central intelligence to have terrorist strongholds or sympathizers also confirmed through the Obama administration, is admitted to be inadequate (3) there is no proof provided to confirm those regions are NOT found to have terrorist strongholds / activity, or
do not to have governments that are opposed to supporting terrorist groups. Based on the facts above, there is nothing found to support a solid case that the EO is unconstitutional. Whether the nation is to accept a large amount of refugees or not is ultimately under the discretion of Congress and the President under the current administration, based on the intelligence they have received. Just as the case of illegal immigration and the enforcement of law is the duty of the extecutuve and legislative, not the place for the judicial branch to take on the role of establishing law to adhere to a preferred ideological view of the current time ..but solely to interpret its original meaning within the context it was originally written.

There is not a single non-Muslim detained at an American airport.
The new president gave his word that all Muslims will be stopped from entering the USA.

He has not stated, nor does the EO state, that this is a ban on all Muslims. Let me know when you can provide some linked facts.

Surely it has not escaped you that it is the intention of Donald Trump to stop all Muslims from getting into the USA. Do you not have a TV, I wonder.



As for the text of the Executive Order, we know the intentions of Donald Trump and the White House staff are trying to explain what the the heck it means.

I don't entertain ideological spin. I have listed six nations that have a Muslim population much greater than those 7 he has placed a temporary suspension on to improve the vetting process. I don't see any linked proof that those immigrants will be denied entry in your post, now do I? Even the FBI director is quoted as admitting the process in inadequate to be effective in determining if an individual has terrorist intentions. Care to make an excuse for that little linked fact? It would appear, based on your response, that you don't take. our national security seriously. You would think liberals like you would learn from the lessons of France. Let me know when you can actually PROVE, any of those nations I listed are also among those temporarily banned entry from the United States. Let's see if we can separate the bullshit from hard fact.

Donald Trump is running the Executive by the seat of his pants and every time he tweets, writes an Executive Order, or opens his vulgar mouth, he is creating chaos. Don't you see the braggart has no clue about being an effective president. In his second week he has already insulted several countries beginning with the Americans' nearest neighbor to the south. Then he tells the 27 countries of the European Union that they should pull asunder their single market, customs union, and their co-operation in an ever closer political union. He has threatened to impose stiff tariffs in American companies which manufacture at home and abroad unless they liquidate their international assets and forego custom-free participation in their subsidiaries abroad. He has undermined the collective security of Europe by warning NATO countries that he will not honor the mutual support of countries which have not paid enough money into the organization. Trump has placed a ban on immigration from a bunch of Middle East countries on the spurious grounds that he is protecting Americans from terrorist attacks when none of these countries sent terrorists to the USA while he continues to allow immigration from the countries which did, notably Saudi Arabia. Exempt from the ban are Christians. Australia, another loyal ally of the USA, we now hear had an awful telephone conversion with its prime minister with Trump tweeting that it was the worst phone call of the lot.

It must be comforting to you not to entertain ideological spin on the operations of the U.S. Executive. Frankly, I cannot imagine how you do not see that the loudmouth narcissist currently in charge is a madman ripping asunder the the good name of America and Americans and replacing them with unbelievable vulgarity, ineptitude, and xenophobia.

 

[owebo]

France had already suffered an attack from extremists who exploited the refugee issue, The FBI director also has admitted problems with the vetting system, and does not have confidence that it is adequate to meet with the concerns of safeguarding the American people from infiltrating terrorists that hope to take advantage of the refugee crisis.


The ban is not even an attack on the basis of religion, as there are 6 nations with a higher Muslim population where immigrants will not be prevented entry.

Nations with highest Muslim Population
- Indonesia 209,120,000
- India 176,200,000
- Pakistan 167,410,000
- Bangladesh 134,430,000
- Nigeria 77,300,000
- Egypt 76,990,000


So (1) there is no religious discrimination that can be proven (2) safe guards to vett refugees in a region that is KNOWN by central intelligence to have terrorist strongholds or sympathizers also confirmed through the Obama administration, is admitted to be inadequate (3) there is no proof provided to confirm those regions are NOT found to have terrorist strongholds / activity, or
do not to have governments that are opposed to supporting terrorist groups. Based on the facts above, there is nothing found to support a solid case that the EO is unconstitutional. Whether the nation is to accept a large amount of refugees or not is ultimately under the discretion of Congress and the President under the current administration, based on the intelligence they have received. Just as the case of illegal immigration and the enforcement of law is the duty of the extecutuve and legislative, not the place for the judicial branch to take on the role of establishing law to adhere to a preferred ideological view of the current time ..but solely to interpret its original meaning within the context it was originally written.

There is not a single non-Muslim detained at an American airport.
The new president gave his word that all Muslims will be stopped from entering the USA.

He has not stated, nor does the EO state, that this is a ban on all Muslims. Let me know when you can provide some linked facts.

Surely it has not escaped you that it is the intention of Donald Trump to stop all Muslims from getting into the USA. Do you not have a TV, I wonder.



As for the text of the Executive Order, we know the intentions of Donald Trump and the White House staff are trying to explain what the the heck it means.

I don't entertain ideological spin. I have listed six nations that have a Muslim population much greater than those 7 he has placed a temporary suspension on to improve the vetting process. I don't see any linked proof that those immigrants will be denied entry in your post, now do I? Even the FBI director is quoted as admitting the process in inadequate to be effective in determining if an individual has terrorist intentions. Care to make an excuse for that little linked fact? It would appear, based on your response, that you don't take. our national security seriously. You would think liberals like you would learn from the lessons of France. Let me know when you can actually PROVE, any of those nations I listed are also among those temporarily banned entry from the United States. Let's see if we can separate the bullshit from hard fact.

Donald Trump is running the Executive by the seat of his pants and every time he tweets, writes an Executive Order, or opens his vulgar mouth, he is creating chaos. Don't you see the braggart has no clue about being an effective president. In his second week he has already insulted several countries beginning with the Americans' nearest neighbor to the south. Then he tells the 27 countries of the European Union that they should pull asunder their single market, customs union, and their co-operation in an ever closer political union. He has threatened to impose stiff tariffs in American companies which manufacture at home and abroad unless they liquidate their international assets and forego custom-free participation in their subsidiaries abroad. He has undermined the collective security of Europe by warning NATO countries that he will not honor the mutual support of countries which have not paid enough money into the organization. Trump has placed a ban on immigration from a bunch of Middle East countries on the spurious grounds that he is protecting Americans from terrorist attacks when none of these countries sent terrorists to the USA while he continues to allow immigration from the countries which did, notably Saudi Arabia. Exempt from the ban are Christians. Australia, another loyal ally of the USA, we now hear had an awful telephone conversion with its prime minister with Trump tweeting that it was the worst phone call of the lot.

It must be comforting to you not to entertain ideological spin on the operations of the U.S. Executive. Frankly, I cannot imagine how you do not see that the loudmouth narcissist currently in charge is a madman ripping asunder the the good name of America and Americans and replacing them with unbelievable vulgarity, ineptitude, and xenophobia.

Your Obama was horrible....

 

[Redfish]

First of all it is a temporary ban
second, it applies to people from 7 countries that promote or harbor terrorism.
third, the word "muslim" does not appear anywhere in it.
fourth, what exactly is wrong with knowing who we let into our country?

You are not suggesting that Donald Trump is not keeping his word to stop all Muslims, surely.

He is not a politician, he sometimes misspeaks, like you and me and all normal people.

Go back and look at how immigrants were screened in the 1800s coming in through Ellis Island in NY. That made sense then and this makes sense now.

Trump became a politician the moment he decided to run for president.
He is creating chaos with poorly written Executive Orders and every time he opens his mouth.
In his first week he insulted a friendly bordering country, Mexico, and Europeans see him as a threat by his loose talk about NATO being obsolete and his bigoted anti-refugee policy.

He is doing exactly what he said he would do during the campaign and exactly what the people elected him to do. Mexico was not insulted, they were called up on their one sided border and trade policy. WE are paying most of the bill for NATO, if they other nations want our protection then they need to pay their share. That's all trump has said.

The people have no authority to elect someone to violate the Constitution. If the prime minister of Canada said he was going to build a wall between his country and the USA and that Americans would pay for it, I know Americans would find that insulting. Mexico is also trading with the USA and Canada according to the terms of NAFTA, a treaty signed by the USA. By saying that the USA will not protect Poland from a Russian invasion because they are behind on their payment to NATO violates the treaty.

How exactly is enforcing our border and immigration laws a violation of the constitution? Obama did exactly the same thing and you libs said nothing. You are disingenuous hypocritical partisan idiots.

On your failed Canada analogy. If the USA was allowing americans to enter Canada illegally and take jobs from Canadian citizens, I feel quite sure that Canada would enforce its border in any way possible including a wall or fence.

Trump did not say that the US would violate the NATO treaties. Only that all of the NATO members should pay their fair share. "fair share" isn't that one of you libs favorite sayings?

 

[Redfish]

He has not stated, nor does the EO state, that this is a ban on all Muslims. Let me know when you can provide some linked facts.

Surely it has not escaped you that it is the intention of Donald Trump to stop all Muslims from getting into the USA. Do you not have a TV, I wonder.



As for the text of the Executive Order, we know the intentions of Donald Trump and the White House staff are trying to explain what the the heck it means.

If that is his intention, why didn't he do it?

It is the stated intention of Donald Trump to shut out all Muslims. You saw the video. It was an outrageous promise to put himself in the good books of voters who hate Muslims and why he did not keep his promise is something only he can answer.

And yet dozens of Muslim Countries are NOT banned from Immigrating go figure.

None of the 9/11 killers came from any of the countries on Donald Trump's list. The man is nuts.

actually it was Obama's list. You should really check the validity of your talking points before parroting them like a good little lib moron.

 

[Redfish]

There is not a single non-Muslim detained at an American airport.
The new president gave his word that all Muslims will be stopped from entering the USA.

He has not stated, nor does the EO state, that this is a ban on all Muslims. Let me know when you can provide some linked facts.

Surely it has not escaped you that it is the intention of Donald Trump to stop all Muslims from getting into the USA. Do you not have a TV, I wonder.



As for the text of the Executive Order, we know the intentions of Donald Trump and the White House staff are trying to explain what the the heck it means.

I don't entertain ideological spin. I have listed six nations that have a Muslim population much greater than those 7 he has placed a temporary suspension on to improve the vetting process. I don't see any linked proof that those immigrants will be denied entry in your post, now do I? Even the FBI director is quoted as admitting the process in inadequate to be effective in determining if an individual has terrorist intentions. Care to make an excuse for that little linked fact? It would appear, based on your response, that you don't take. our national security seriously. You would think liberals like you would learn from the lessons of France. Let me know when you can actually PROVE, any of those nations I listed are also among those temporarily banned entry from the United States. Let's see if we can separate the bullshit from hard fact.

Donald Trump is running the Executive by the seat of his pants and every time he tweets, writes an Executive Order, or opens his vulgar mouth, he is creating chaos. Don't you see the braggart has no clue about being an effective president. In his second week he has already insulted several countries beginning with the Americans' nearest neighbor to the south. Then he tells the 27 countries of the European Union that they should pull asunder their single market, customs union, and their co-operation in an ever closer political union. He has threatened to impose stiff tariffs in American companies which manufacture at home and abroad unless they liquidate their international assets and forego custom-free participation in their subsidiaries abroad. He has undermined the collective security of Europe by warning NATO countries that he will not honor the mutual support of countries which have not paid enough money into the organization. Trump has placed a ban on immigration from a bunch of Middle East countries on the spurious grounds that he is protecting Americans from terrorist attacks when none of these countries sent terrorists to the USA while he continues to allow immigration from the countries which did, notably Saudi Arabia. Exempt from the ban are Christians. Australia, another loyal ally of the USA, we now hear had an awful telephone conversion with its prime minister with Trump tweeting that it was the worst phone call of the lot.

It must be comforting to you not to entertain ideological spin on the operations of the U.S. Executive. Frankly, I cannot imagine how you do not see that the loudmouth narcissist currently in charge is a madman ripping asunder the the good name of America and Americans and replacing them with unbelievable vulgarity, ineptitude, and xenophobia.

Your Obama was horrible....

worst in history, bar none.

 

[Redfish]

Not all refugees are the same. Muslim refugees are different because Islam is different. Yes, we need to treat Muslim refugees differently.

I do not share your anti-Muslim bigotry.

Hint: the "virgins in paradise" thing is a myth.

 

[Eloy]

You are not suggesting that Donald Trump is not keeping his word to stop all Muslims, surely.

He is not a politician, he sometimes misspeaks, like you and me and all normal people.

Go back and look at how immigrants were screened in the 1800s coming in through Ellis Island in NY. That made sense then and this makes sense now.

Trump became a politician the moment he decided to run for president.
He is creating chaos with poorly written Executive Orders and every time he opens his mouth.
In his first week he insulted a friendly bordering country, Mexico, and Europeans see him as a threat by his loose talk about NATO being obsolete and his bigoted anti-refugee policy.

He is doing exactly what he said he would do during the campaign and exactly what the people elected him to do. Mexico was not insulted, they were called up on their one sided border and trade policy. WE are paying most of the bill for NATO, if they other nations want our protection then they need to pay their share. That's all trump has said.

The people have no authority to elect someone to violate the Constitution. If the prime minister of Canada said he was going to build a wall between his country and the USA and that Americans would pay for it, I know Americans would find that insulting. Mexico is also trading with the USA and Canada according to the terms of NAFTA, a treaty signed by the USA. By saying that the USA will not protect Poland from a Russian invasion because they are behind on their payment to NATO violates the treaty.

How exactly is enforcing our border and immigration laws a violation of the constitution? Obama did exactly the same thing and you libs said nothing. You are disingenuous hypocritical partisan idiots.

On your failed Canada analogy. If the USA was allowing americans to enter Canada illegally and take jobs from Canadian citizens, I feel quite sure that Canada would enforce its border in any way possible including a wall or fence.

Trump did not say that the US would violate the NATO treaties. Only that all of the NATO members should pay their fair share. "fair share" isn't that one of you libs favorite sayings?

There are already adequate laws regarding immigration. Executive Orders are unnecessary.
There is no way Canada would build a wall to keep-out Americans. Furthermore, Americans are not lining-up to work for minimum wages doing seasonal agricultural work in California, Arizona, and any number of states.
Trump did more than ask all NATO states to pay 2% of their GNP. He also threatened not to assist any member state should they be invaded while they are behind in their payments.

 

[Eloy]

Surely it has not escaped you that it is the intention of Donald Trump to stop all Muslims from getting into the USA. Do you not have a TV, I wonder.



As for the text of the Executive Order, we know the intentions of Donald Trump and the White House staff are trying to explain what the the heck it means.

If that is his intention, why didn't he do it?

It is the stated intention of Donald Trump to shut out all Muslims. You saw the video. It was an outrageous promise to put himself in the good books of voters who hate Muslims and why he did not keep his promise is something only he can answer.

And yet dozens of Muslim Countries are NOT banned from Immigrating go figure.

None of the 9/11 killers came from any of the countries on Donald Trump's list. The man is nuts.

actually it was Obama's list. You should really check the validity of your talking points before parroting them like a good little lib moron.

I do not know about Obama's list. We are discussing Trump.

 

[Eloy]

He has not stated, nor does the EO state, that this is a ban on all Muslims. Let me know when you can provide some linked facts.

Surely it has not escaped you that it is the intention of Donald Trump to stop all Muslims from getting into the USA. Do you not have a TV, I wonder.



As for the text of the Executive Order, we know the intentions of Donald Trump and the White House staff are trying to explain what the the heck it means.

I don't entertain ideological spin. I have listed six nations that have a Muslim population much greater than those 7 he has placed a temporary suspension on to improve the vetting process. I don't see any linked proof that those immigrants will be denied entry in your post, now do I? Even the FBI director is quoted as admitting the process in inadequate to be effective in determining if an individual has terrorist intentions. Care to make an excuse for that little linked fact? It would appear, based on your response, that you don't take. our national security seriously. You would think liberals like you would learn from the lessons of France. Let me know when you can actually PROVE, any of those nations I listed are also among those temporarily banned entry from the United States. Let's see if we can separate the bullshit from hard fact.

Donald Trump is running the Executive by the seat of his pants and every time he tweets, writes an Executive Order, or opens his vulgar mouth, he is creating chaos. Don't you see the braggart has no clue about being an effective president. In his second week he has already insulted several countries beginning with the Americans' nearest neighbor to the south. Then he tells the 27 countries of the European Union that they should pull asunder their single market, customs union, and their co-operation in an ever closer political union. He has threatened to impose stiff tariffs in American companies which manufacture at home and abroad unless they liquidate their international assets and forego custom-free participation in their subsidiaries abroad. He has undermined the collective security of Europe by warning NATO countries that he will not honor the mutual support of countries which have not paid enough money into the organization. Trump has placed a ban on immigration from a bunch of Middle East countries on the spurious grounds that he is protecting Americans from terrorist attacks when none of these countries sent terrorists to the USA while he continues to allow immigration from the countries which did, notably Saudi Arabia. Exempt from the ban are Christians. Australia, another loyal ally of the USA, we now hear had an awful telephone conversion with its prime minister with Trump tweeting that it was the worst phone call of the lot.

It must be comforting to you not to entertain ideological spin on the operations of the U.S. Executive. Frankly, I cannot imagine how you do not see that the loudmouth narcissist currently in charge is a madman ripping asunder the the good name of America and Americans and replacing them with unbelievable vulgarity, ineptitude, and xenophobia.

Your Obama was horrible....

worst in history, bar none.

Obama did not illegally invade other countries.

 

[Redfish]

He is not a politician, he sometimes misspeaks, like you and me and all normal people.

Go back and look at how immigrants were screened in the 1800s coming in through Ellis Island in NY. That made sense then and this makes sense now.

Trump became a politician the moment he decided to run for president.
He is creating chaos with poorly written Executive Orders and every time he opens his mouth.
In his first week he insulted a friendly bordering country, Mexico, and Europeans see him as a threat by his loose talk about NATO being obsolete and his bigoted anti-refugee policy.

He is doing exactly what he said he would do during the campaign and exactly what the people elected him to do. Mexico was not insulted, they were called up on their one sided border and trade policy. WE are paying most of the bill for NATO, if they other nations want our protection then they need to pay their share. That's all trump has said.

The people have no authority to elect someone to violate the Constitution. If the prime minister of Canada said he was going to build a wall between his country and the USA and that Americans would pay for it, I know Americans would find that insulting. Mexico is also trading with the USA and Canada according to the terms of NAFTA, a treaty signed by the USA. By saying that the USA will not protect Poland from a Russian invasion because they are behind on their payment to NATO violates the treaty.

How exactly is enforcing our border and immigration laws a violation of the constitution? Obama did exactly the same thing and you libs said nothing. You are disingenuous hypocritical partisan idiots.

On your failed Canada analogy. If the USA was allowing americans to enter Canada illegally and take jobs from Canadian citizens, I feel quite sure that Canada would enforce its border in any way possible including a wall or fence.

Trump did not say that the US would violate the NATO treaties. Only that all of the NATO members should pay their fair share. "fair share" isn't that one of you libs favorite sayings?

There are already adequate laws regarding immigration. Executive Orders are unnecessary.
There is no way Canada would build a wall to keep-out Americans. Furthermore, Americans are not lining-up to work for minimum wages doing seasonal agricultural work in California, Arizona, and any number of states.
Trump did more than ask all NATO states to pay 2% of their GNP. He also threatened not to assist any member state should they be invaded while they are behind in their payments.

Yes, we already have adequate immigration laws. The problem is that until last week, they were not being enforced. The EO is not new law, it is merely instruction to the border patrol and ICE on how to enforce existing law (on a temporary basis until adequate vetting procedures can be put in place).

This is nothing new, Carter did it, Obama did it, Reagan did it, Clinton did it.

Your talking point instructors and the dems are lying to you and you are too stupid to know it----------------useful idiot, fits you perfectly.

 

[Redfish]

If that is his intention, why didn't he do it?

It is the stated intention of Donald Trump to shut out all Muslims. You saw the video. It was an outrageous promise to put himself in the good books of voters who hate Muslims and why he did not keep his promise is something only he can answer.

And yet dozens of Muslim Countries are NOT banned from Immigrating go figure.

None of the 9/11 killers came from any of the countries on Donald Trump's list. The man is nuts.

actually it was Obama's list. You should really check the validity of your talking points before parroting them like a good little lib moron.

I do not know about Obama's list. We are discussing Trump.

so you admit that you are speaking from a position of ignorance? at least that's a start.

 

[Eloy]

Trump became a politician the moment he decided to run for president.
He is creating chaos with poorly written Executive Orders and every time he opens his mouth.
In his first week he insulted a friendly bordering country, Mexico, and Europeans see him as a threat by his loose talk about NATO being obsolete and his bigoted anti-refugee policy.

He is doing exactly what he said he would do during the campaign and exactly what the people elected him to do. Mexico was not insulted, they were called up on their one sided border and trade policy. WE are paying most of the bill for NATO, if they other nations want our protection then they need to pay their share. That's all trump has said.

The people have no authority to elect someone to violate the Constitution. If the prime minister of Canada said he was going to build a wall between his country and the USA and that Americans would pay for it, I know Americans would find that insulting. Mexico is also trading with the USA and Canada according to the terms of NAFTA, a treaty signed by the USA. By saying that the USA will not protect Poland from a Russian invasion because they are behind on their payment to NATO violates the treaty.

How exactly is enforcing our border and immigration laws a violation of the constitution? Obama did exactly the same thing and you libs said nothing. You are disingenuous hypocritical partisan idiots.

On your failed Canada analogy. If the USA was allowing americans to enter Canada illegally and take jobs from Canadian citizens, I feel quite sure that Canada would enforce its border in any way possible including a wall or fence.

Trump did not say that the US would violate the NATO treaties. Only that all of the NATO members should pay their fair share. "fair share" isn't that one of you libs favorite sayings?

There are already adequate laws regarding immigration. Executive Orders are unnecessary.
There is no way Canada would build a wall to keep-out Americans. Furthermore, Americans are not lining-up to work for minimum wages doing seasonal agricultural work in California, Arizona, and any number of states.
Trump did more than ask all NATO states to pay 2% of their GNP. He also threatened not to assist any member state should they be invaded while they are behind in their payments.

Yes, we already have adequate immigration laws. The problem is that until last week, they were not being enforced. The EO is not new law, it is merely instruction to the border patrol and ICE on how to enforce existing law (on a temporary basis until adequate vetting procedures can be put in place).

This is nothing new, Carter did it, Obama did it, Reagan did it, Clinton did it.

Your talking point instructors and the dems are lying to you and you are too stupid to know it----------------useful idiot, fits you perfectly.

Any more personal insults from you and you will not hear from me again.

 

[Redfish]

Surely it has not escaped you that it is the intention of Donald Trump to stop all Muslims from getting into the USA. Do you not have a TV, I wonder.



As for the text of the Executive Order, we know the intentions of Donald Trump and the White House staff are trying to explain what the the heck it means.

I don't entertain ideological spin. I have listed six nations that have a Muslim population much greater than those 7 he has placed a temporary suspension on to improve the vetting process. I don't see any linked proof that those immigrants will be denied entry in your post, now do I? Even the FBI director is quoted as admitting the process in inadequate to be effective in determining if an individual has terrorist intentions. Care to make an excuse for that little linked fact? It would appear, based on your response, that you don't take. our national security seriously. You would think liberals like you would learn from the lessons of France. Let me know when you can actually PROVE, any of those nations I listed are also among those temporarily banned entry from the United States. Let's see if we can separate the bullshit from hard fact.

Donald Trump is running the Executive by the seat of his pants and every time he tweets, writes an Executive Order, or opens his vulgar mouth, he is creating chaos. Don't you see the braggart has no clue about being an effective president. In his second week he has already insulted several countries beginning with the Americans' nearest neighbor to the south. Then he tells the 27 countries of the European Union that they should pull asunder their single market, customs union, and their co-operation in an ever closer political union. He has threatened to impose stiff tariffs in American companies which manufacture at home and abroad unless they liquidate their international assets and forego custom-free participation in their subsidiaries abroad. He has undermined the collective security of Europe by warning NATO countries that he will not honor the mutual support of countries which have not paid enough money into the organization. Trump has placed a ban on immigration from a bunch of Middle East countries on the spurious grounds that he is protecting Americans from terrorist attacks when none of these countries sent terrorists to the USA while he continues to allow immigration from the countries which did, notably Saudi Arabia. Exempt from the ban are Christians. Australia, another loyal ally of the USA, we now hear had an awful telephone conversion with its prime minister with Trump tweeting that it was the worst phone call of the lot.

It must be comforting to you not to entertain ideological spin on the operations of the U.S. Executive. Frankly, I cannot imagine how you do not see that the loudmouth narcissist currently in charge is a madman ripping asunder the the good name of America and Americans and replacing them with unbelievable vulgarity, ineptitude, and xenophobia.

Your Obama was horrible....

worst in history, bar none.

Obama did not illegally invade other countries.

Which president invaded illegally? If you say Bush, you are once again showing your partisan ignorance. While I disagree with what Bush did, he had the authorization and approval, and funding from congress before doing it-----------it was not illegal.

 

[Redfish]

He is doing exactly what he said he would do during the campaign and exactly what the people elected him to do. Mexico was not insulted, they were called up on their one sided border and trade policy. WE are paying most of the bill for NATO, if they other nations want our protection then they need to pay their share. That's all trump has said.

The people have no authority to elect someone to violate the Constitution. If the prime minister of Canada said he was going to build a wall between his country and the USA and that Americans would pay for it, I know Americans would find that insulting. Mexico is also trading with the USA and Canada according to the terms of NAFTA, a treaty signed by the USA. By saying that the USA will not protect Poland from a Russian invasion because they are behind on their payment to NATO violates the treaty.

How exactly is enforcing our border and immigration laws a violation of the constitution? Obama did exactly the same thing and you libs said nothing. You are disingenuous hypocritical partisan idiots.

On your failed Canada analogy. If the USA was allowing americans to enter Canada illegally and take jobs from Canadian citizens, I feel quite sure that Canada would enforce its border in any way possible including a wall or fence.

Trump did not say that the US would violate the NATO treaties. Only that all of the NATO members should pay their fair share. "fair share" isn't that one of you libs favorite sayings?

There are already adequate laws regarding immigration. Executive Orders are unnecessary.
There is no way Canada would build a wall to keep-out Americans. Furthermore, Americans are not lining-up to work for minimum wages doing seasonal agricultural work in California, Arizona, and any number of states.
Trump did more than ask all NATO states to pay 2% of their GNP. He also threatened not to assist any member state should they be invaded while they are behind in their payments.

Yes, we already have adequate immigration laws. The problem is that until last week, they were not being enforced. The EO is not new law, it is merely instruction to the border patrol and ICE on how to enforce existing law (on a temporary basis until adequate vetting procedures can be put in place).

This is nothing new, Carter did it, Obama did it, Reagan did it, Clinton did it.

Your talking point instructors and the dems are lying to you and you are too stupid to know it----------------useful idiot, fits you perfectly.

Any more personal insults from you and you will not hear from me again.

fine with me. The truth hurts, doesn't it?

 

[Eloy]

I don't entertain ideological spin. I have listed six nations that have a Muslim population much greater than those 7 he has placed a temporary suspension on to improve the vetting process. I don't see any linked proof that those immigrants will be denied entry in your post, now do I? Even the FBI director is quoted as admitting the process in inadequate to be effective in determining if an individual has terrorist intentions. Care to make an excuse for that little linked fact? It would appear, based on your response, that you don't take. our national security seriously. You would think liberals like you would learn from the lessons of France. Let me know when you can actually PROVE, any of those nations I listed are also among those temporarily banned entry from the United States. Let's see if we can separate the bullshit from hard fact.

Donald Trump is running the Executive by the seat of his pants and every time he tweets, writes an Executive Order, or opens his vulgar mouth, he is creating chaos. Don't you see the braggart has no clue about being an effective president. In his second week he has already insulted several countries beginning with the Americans' nearest neighbor to the south. Then he tells the 27 countries of the European Union that they should pull asunder their single market, customs union, and their co-operation in an ever closer political union. He has threatened to impose stiff tariffs in American companies which manufacture at home and abroad unless they liquidate their international assets and forego custom-free participation in their subsidiaries abroad. He has undermined the collective security of Europe by warning NATO countries that he will not honor the mutual support of countries which have not paid enough money into the organization. Trump has placed a ban on immigration from a bunch of Middle East countries on the spurious grounds that he is protecting Americans from terrorist attacks when none of these countries sent terrorists to the USA while he continues to allow immigration from the countries which did, notably Saudi Arabia. Exempt from the ban are Christians. Australia, another loyal ally of the USA, we now hear had an awful telephone conversion with its prime minister with Trump tweeting that it was the worst phone call of the lot.

It must be comforting to you not to entertain ideological spin on the operations of the U.S. Executive. Frankly, I cannot imagine how you do not see that the loudmouth narcissist currently in charge is a madman ripping asunder the the good name of America and Americans and replacing them with unbelievable vulgarity, ineptitude, and xenophobia.

Your Obama was horrible....

worst in history, bar none.

Obama did not illegally invade other countries.

Which president invaded illegally? If you say Bush, you are once again showing your partisan ignorance. While I disagree with what Bush did, he had the authorization and approval, and funding from congress before doing it-----------it was not illegal.

Starting wars and invading countries is against international law regardless of what American politicians think.

 

[Eloy]

The people have no authority to elect someone to violate the Constitution. If the prime minister of Canada said he was going to build a wall between his country and the USA and that Americans would pay for it, I know Americans would find that insulting. Mexico is also trading with the USA and Canada according to the terms of NAFTA, a treaty signed by the USA. By saying that the USA will not protect Poland from a Russian invasion because they are behind on their payment to NATO violates the treaty.

How exactly is enforcing our border and immigration laws a violation of the constitution? Obama did exactly the same thing and you libs said nothing. You are disingenuous hypocritical partisan idiots.

On your failed Canada analogy. If the USA was allowing americans to enter Canada illegally and take jobs from Canadian citizens, I feel quite sure that Canada would enforce its border in any way possible including a wall or fence.

Trump did not say that the US would violate the NATO treaties. Only that all of the NATO members should pay their fair share. "fair share" isn't that one of you libs favorite sayings?

There are already adequate laws regarding immigration. Executive Orders are unnecessary.
There is no way Canada would build a wall to keep-out Americans. Furthermore, Americans are not lining-up to work for minimum wages doing seasonal agricultural work in California, Arizona, and any number of states.
Trump did more than ask all NATO states to pay 2% of their GNP. He also threatened not to assist any member state should they be invaded while they are behind in their payments.

Yes, we already have adequate immigration laws. The problem is that until last week, they were not being enforced. The EO is not new law, it is merely instruction to the border patrol and ICE on how to enforce existing law (on a temporary basis until adequate vetting procedures can be put in place).

This is nothing new, Carter did it, Obama did it, Reagan did it, Clinton did it.

Your talking point instructors and the dems are lying to you and you are too stupid to know it----------------useful idiot, fits you perfectly.

Any more personal insults from you and you will not hear from me again.

fine with me. The truth hurts, doesn't it?

You are calling names and insulting in every post while I never did that once to you.

 

[Redfish]

Donald Trump is running the Executive by the seat of his pants and every time he tweets, writes an Executive Order, or opens his vulgar mouth, he is creating chaos. Don't you see the braggart has no clue about being an effective president. In his second week he has already insulted several countries beginning with the Americans' nearest neighbor to the south. Then he tells the 27 countries of the European Union that they should pull asunder their single market, customs union, and their co-operation in an ever closer political union. He has threatened to impose stiff tariffs in American companies which manufacture at home and abroad unless they liquidate their international assets and forego custom-free participation in their subsidiaries abroad. He has undermined the collective security of Europe by warning NATO countries that he will not honor the mutual support of countries which have not paid enough money into the organization. Trump has placed a ban on immigration from a bunch of Middle East countries on the spurious grounds that he is protecting Americans from terrorist attacks when none of these countries sent terrorists to the USA while he continues to allow immigration from the countries which did, notably Saudi Arabia. Exempt from the ban are Christians. Australia, another loyal ally of the USA, we now hear had an awful telephone conversion with its prime minister with Trump tweeting that it was the worst phone call of the lot.

It must be comforting to you not to entertain ideological spin on the operations of the U.S. Executive. Frankly, I cannot imagine how you do not see that the loudmouth narcissist currently in charge is a madman ripping asunder the the good name of America and Americans and replacing them with unbelievable vulgarity, ineptitude, and xenophobia.

Your Obama was horrible....

worst in history, bar none.

Obama did not illegally invade other countries.

Which president invaded illegally? If you say Bush, you are once again showing your partisan ignorance. While I disagree with what Bush did, he had the authorization and approval, and funding from congress before doing it-----------it was not illegal.

Starting wars and invading countries is against international law regardless of what American politicians think.

"international law" ? Could you please tell us where we can find a book of "international law"? Then tell us what court has international jurisdiction to enforce "international law".

With every new post, you confirm your ignorance.