How did we pick the 7 countries?

[theHawk]

Unfortunately for you, the President still has the authority to impose any restrictions he wants:

8 U.S. Code § 1182
(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.

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, is federal law. 8USC1182 does not supersede it. It must be reconciled with the previous federal act, unless repealed.

That is codified law, it wasn't repealed. The 1965 bill just adds to the code, and it did not repeal the previous text. If it did not explicitly take away the Presidential powers, it stands.

here is one of the conditions of the Act of 1965:

One of the main components aimed to abolish the national-origins quota. This meant that it eliminated national origin, race, and ancestry as basis for immigration.

Yea so? No one is setting national origins quotas. Nothing about abolishing Presidential powers and the executive's right to enforce any restriction he wants.

You failed again. Keep digging though, I'm sure the MSM didn't lie to you.

Just lousy reading comprehension from the national socialist right wing?

This meant that it eliminated national origin, race, and ancestry as basis for immigration.

Apparently you do have lousy reading comprehension. The President's authority to enforce any restrictions he wants is right there in black and white, codified in Federal US Code.

 

[danielpalos]

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, is federal law. 8USC1182 does not supersede it. It must be reconciled with the previous federal act, unless repealed.

That is codified law, it wasn't repealed. The 1965 bill just adds to the code, and it did not repeal the previous text. If it did not explicitly take away the Presidential powers, it stands.

here is one of the conditions of the Act of 1965:

One of the main components aimed to abolish the national-origins quota. This meant that it eliminated national origin, race, and ancestry as basis for immigration.

Yea so? No one is setting national origins quotas. Nothing about abolishing Presidential powers and the executive's right to enforce any restriction he wants.

You failed again. Keep digging though, I'm sure the MSM didn't lie to you.

Just lousy reading comprehension from the national socialist right wing?

This meant that it eliminated national origin, race, and ancestry as basis for immigration.

Apparently you do have lousy reading comprehension. The President's authority to enforce any restrictions he wants is right there in black and white, codified in Federal US Code.

It is not in the INA of 1965.

 

[theHawk]

That is codified law, it wasn't repealed. The 1965 bill just adds to the code, and it did not repeal the previous text. If it did not explicitly take away the Presidential powers, it stands.

here is one of the conditions of the Act of 1965:

One of the main components aimed to abolish the national-origins quota. This meant that it eliminated national origin, race, and ancestry as basis for immigration.

Yea so? No one is setting national origins quotas. Nothing about abolishing Presidential powers and the executive's right to enforce any restriction he wants.

You failed again. Keep digging though, I'm sure the MSM didn't lie to you.

Just lousy reading comprehension from the national socialist right wing?

This meant that it eliminated national origin, race, and ancestry as basis for immigration.

Apparently you do have lousy reading comprehension. The President's authority to enforce any restrictions he wants is right there in black and white, codified in Federal US Code.

It is not in the INA of 1965.

No shit, there is nothing in INA of 1965 that abolishes the President's authority, nothing that removes previous law. At least you can admit you were wrong.

 

[jknowgood]

No a muslim ban would include everh muslim.....
Your logic is stupid

Its not an african ban and its not an asian ban, its not a human ban.
And not every person in those countries is a muslim

Jesus you're dumb

NO, a muslim ban would be when your EO says that Syrian refugees are indefinitely excluded,

but then you turn around in public remarks claiming you're going to give special treatment to CHRISTIAN Syrians.

Wait the ones obama didnt let in?

Are you an Obama supporter now? lolololol

You may not like the facts, im just stating them.

I used Obama tocounter the fake news of stupid shit like this that you lefties put out.

Hey RWs: why didn't Trump ban include Muslims nations he does business with?

You didn't answer the question. Are you an Obama supporter now?

You're praising Trump for following what you claim is an Obama policy.

No he is probably amused that when Trump used the same list as Obama created. You liberals are outraged. Are you an Obama hater now?

 

[danielpalos]

Yea so? No one is setting national origins quotas. Nothing about abolishing Presidential powers and the executive's right to enforce any restriction he wants.

You failed again. Keep digging though, I'm sure the MSM didn't lie to you.

Just lousy reading comprehension from the national socialist right wing?

This meant that it eliminated national origin, race, and ancestry as basis for immigration.

Apparently you do have lousy reading comprehension. The President's authority to enforce any restrictions he wants is right there in black and white, codified in Federal US Code.

It is not in the INA of 1965.

No shit, there is nothing in INA of 1965 that abolishes the President's authority, nothing that removes previous law. At least you can admit you were wrong.

No, i can't. You still need to prove it.

One of the main components aimed to abolish the national-origins quota. This meant that it eliminated national origin, race, and ancestry as basis for immigration.

On what basis is our President using national origin? It cannot be due to any perceived, conflict of interest.

 

[theHawk]

Yea so? No one is setting national origins quotas. Nothing about abolishing Presidential powers and the executive's right to enforce any restriction he wants.

You failed again. Keep digging though, I'm sure the MSM didn't lie to you.

Just lousy reading comprehension from the national socialist right wing?

This meant that it eliminated national origin, race, and ancestry as basis for immigration.

Apparently you do have lousy reading comprehension. The President's authority to enforce any restrictions he wants is right there in black and white, codified in Federal US Code.

It is not in the INA of 1965.

No shit, there is nothing in INA of 1965 that abolishes the President's authority, nothing that removes previous law. At least you can admit you were wrong.

No, i can't. You still need to prove it.

One of the main components aimed to abolish the national-origins quota. This meant that it eliminated national origin, race, and ancestry as basis for immigration.

Trump set no quotas at all, much less based any on national origin, race, ect. He put a temporary ban in effect against dangerous war torn countries or terror sponsor states.

 

[danielpalos]

Just lousy reading comprehension from the national socialist right wing?

Apparently you do have lousy reading comprehension. The President's authority to enforce any restrictions he wants is right there in black and white, codified in Federal US Code.

It is not in the INA of 1965.

No shit, there is nothing in INA of 1965 that abolishes the President's authority, nothing that removes previous law. At least you can admit you were wrong.

No, i can't. You still need to prove it.

One of the main components aimed to abolish the national-origins quota. This meant that it eliminated national origin, race, and ancestry as basis for immigration.

Trump set no quotas at all, much less based any on national origin, race, ect. He put a temporary ban in effect against dangerous war torn countries or terror sponsor states.

which states are not, national origin? why not look it up in a dictionary. you won't even need to have "work ethic" and go to an encyclopedia.

 

[Tom Cassidy]

Trump won't say "Muslim ban". He is just like Obama who would not say "Muslim terrorist".

Pussy.

Well since he's not banning every Muslim, hut every terrorist was a Muslim, its an incorrect and fake comparison

Try again.

Everyone Trump is banning is a Muslim. It's a Muslim ban.

No a muslim ban would include every muslim.....
Your logic is stupid

You said every terrorist is a Muslim. That's how we get "Muslim terrorist".

Everyone banned is a Muslim. That's how we get "Muslim ban".

Don't tell me my logic is stupid. It is YOUR logic.

It is stupid, because not every muslim is banned

Jordan...not banned
Saudi arabia....not bannex
Indonesia....not banned
Pakistan.....not banned..

Kuwait...not banned


Youndont get anuance, if yourr from the 7 countries you are banned TEMPORARILY, nut a Muslim ban would ban EVERY muslim.

Every terrorist is a Muslim = Muslim terrorist.

Every banned person is a Muslim = Muslim ban.

Now do you want a list of all the Muslims who are not terrorists so you can stop saying "Muslim terrorist"? See how stupid that would sound. Stop being a pussy. Call a spade a spade. This is a Muslim ban. Trump is keeping his promise.

GO TRUMP!!!

 

[Tom Cassidy]

We wanted a Muslim ban. We cheered when Trump said we should have one. Now that trump has a Muslim ban, the pussies in the party are running for cover. What is going on? It is time to purge the pussies.

 

[buckeye45_73]

I asked you a question ot two.
How many syrians are Christian?
How many did we take in?

Just give percentages.

Then well move.on.

Is Trump banning Christian refugees or not?

Every article i found, wapo, nyt, telegraph never said either way.
The only thing i found was Trump bitching about christains not let in.

Bit if they are froma.. country on the list, no they should not be let in. Unless we can verify them, and that goes for muslims and others as well.

Donald Trump says if you're from Syria and a Christian, you can't come to the U.S. as a refugee

Wow that piece is so biased its disgusting propaganda
First it was less than one percent of refugees were christians 190 out of 19500
Second thats a very small percentage compared to 10 percent of the population.

I mean the left complains aboit blacks not getting a fair shot even if they are in the low double digits for an industry or colege entrance, ect.....

Got a link for those numbers? Trump the candidate was lying.

Our ruling

Trump said that "if you're from Syria and you're a Christian, you cannot come into this country" as a refugee. This is wrong on its face -- a small number of Syrian Christians been admitted as refugees over the past nine months -- and also false in spirit, since there is nothing in the United States’ laws or regulations that discriminates against Christian refugees. We rate the claim False.

Its onlumybfalse if yiu think ancoiuple hundredna
Out of nearly 20000 is fair. There is no reason for that. They only admitted those to give people like you cover, but since its nowhere near the percentage of christians in the country, i want to know why that percentage was so low.

We all know he valued Muslims more than christians, which is why.

 

[buckeye45_73]

'How did we pick the 7 countries?'

'WE' didn't - Barry did!

In our current president's, executive order?

Yeah, obama laid out the reasons for the ban on those countries...Trump just stepped it one.

 

[BlindBoo]

Only slightly higher numbers of Muslims have immigrated here as opposed to Christians. 46% to 44%.


That all immigration not just from Syria.

 

[danielpalos]

'How did we pick the 7 countries?'

'WE' didn't - Barry did!

In our current president's, executive order?

Yeah, obama laid out the reasons for the ban on those countries...Trump just stepped it one.

Just right wing, national socialist revisions?

The President left Saudi Arabia out of the order - despite most of those who hijacked airliners to attack New York and Washington DC on 9/11, the deadliest terrorist episode in history, being Saudis.

But Express.co.uk can reveal the billionaire registered eight new companies in Saudi Arabia during his campaign to reach the White House.

He also failed to include Egypt, even though the leader of the 9/11 hijackers was Mohammed Atta, an Egyptian man.

Source: What are the 7 countries Donald Trump is banning travel from? And what are his reasons?

“Obama’s policy did not prevent all citizens of that country, including green-card holders, from traveling the United States. Trump’s policy is much more sweeping, though officials have appeared to pull back from barring permanent U.S. residents,” the Washington Post reports.

 

[TooTall]

Trump won't say "Muslim ban". He is just like Obama who would not say "Muslim terrorist".

Pussy.

There are 40 majority Muslim countries that are not on the list, so calling it a Muslim ban would not be correct. No comparison to the pussy that wouldn't say Muslim terrorist.

 

[TooTall]

Trump won't say "Muslim ban". He is just like Obama who would not say "Muslim terrorist".

Pussy.

Well since he's not banning every Muslim, hut every terrorist was a Muslim, its an incorrect and fake comparison

Try again.

Everyone Trump is banning is a Muslim. It's a Muslim ban.

No a muslim ban would include everh muslim.....
Your logic is stupid

Its not an african ban and its not an asian ban, its not a human ban.
And not every person in those countries is a muslim

Jesus you're dumb

NO, a muslim ban would be when your EO says that Syrian refugees are indefinitely excluded,

but then you turn around in public remarks claiming you're going to give special treatment to CHRISTIAN Syrians.

Christian Syrians would pass the vetting process rather easily don't you think?

 

[danielpalos]

Trump won't say "Muslim ban". He is just like Obama who would not say "Muslim terrorist".

Pussy.

There are 40 majority Muslim countries that are not on the list, so calling it a Muslim ban would not be correct. No comparison to the pussy that wouldn't say Muslim terrorist.

Will Muslims not be vetted, extremely?

 

[TooTall]

Trump won't say "Muslim ban". He is just like Obama who would not say "Muslim terrorist".

Pussy.

There are 40 majority Muslim countries that are not on the list, so calling it a Muslim ban would not be correct. No comparison to the pussy that wouldn't say Muslim terrorist.

Will Muslims not be vetted, extremely?

Everyone from a Muslim majority country seeking a visa or to migrate to the US should be extremely vetted.

 

[Tom Cassidy]

Trump won't say "Muslim ban". He is just like Obama who would not say "Muslim terrorist".

Pussy.

There are 40 majority Muslim countries that are not on the list, so calling it a Muslim ban would not be correct. No comparison to the pussy that wouldn't say Muslim terrorist.

Will Muslims not be vetted, extremely?

Everyone from a Muslim majority country seeking a visa or to migrate to the US should be extremely vetted.

They should be extremely vented. With hot lead.

 

[danielpalos]

Trump won't say "Muslim ban". He is just like Obama who would not say "Muslim terrorist".

Pussy.

There are 40 majority Muslim countries that are not on the list, so calling it a Muslim ban would not be correct. No comparison to the pussy that wouldn't say Muslim terrorist.

Will Muslims not be vetted, extremely?

Everyone from a Muslim majority country seeking a visa or to migrate to the US should be extremely vetted.

They should be extremely vented. With hot lead.

Just, national socialist right wing, fantasy?

 

[GaryDog]

B. S.



Trump’s facile claim that his refugee policy is similar to Obama’s in 2011