What did Harvard Law Professor Say About Likely Outcome of Trump's Travel Ban?

[Wry Catcher]

One thing stood out in the court arguments . When asked if the ban was not reviewable he said "yes".

Seriously ? So Trump is the be all end all? Since when is there no checks n balances ?

Feel free to point where the law defers to anyones judgment other than the president.View attachment 111714

Show me in the law where anyone else in given a say, where does it say what a judge may deem to be appropriate?

Cherry Picked ^^^ and a lie by omission:

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

See (3) Security and Related Grounds

See (3) B, they have every right to determine if the people being admitted are terrorist or have terrorist ties, how do you do that if the home countries have no effective central government and really have no idea who is in their country or where they came from? That was the whole purpose of the hold, they want to review how these people are vetted, it was for a whole 90 days, is that unreasonable?

(B)Terrorist activities
section 2339D(c)(1) of title 18) from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(IX)
is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under this subparagraph, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years,
 is inadmissible. An alien who is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered, for purposes of this chapter, to be engaged in a terrorist activity.

One thing stood out in the court arguments . When asked if the ban was not reviewable he said "yes".

Seriously ? So Trump is the be all end all? Since when is there no checks n balances ?

Feel free to point where the law defers to anyones judgment other than the president.View attachment 111714

Show me in the law where anyone else in given a say, where does it say what a judge may deem to be appropriate?

Cherry Picked ^^^ and a lie by omission:

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

See (3) Security and Related Grounds

See (3) B, they have every right to determine if the people being admitted are terrorist or have terrorist ties, how do you do that if the home countries have no effective central government and really have no idea who is in their country or where they came from? That was the whole purpose of the hold, they want to review how these people are vetted, it was for a whole 90 days, is that unreasonable?

B:
(I) has engaged in a terrorist activity;
(II) a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity (as defined in clause (iv));
(III) has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity;
(IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of—
(aa) a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(bb) a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity;
(V) is a member of a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi);
(VI) is a member of a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the alien can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alien did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization;
(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;
(VIII) has received military-type training (as defined in section 2339D(c)(1) of title 18) from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(IX) is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under this subparagraph, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years,
 is inadmissible. An alien who is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered, for purposes of this chapter, to be engaged in a terrorist activity.

Do you believe every person who is a citizen in the seven countries designated meet one or more of these restrictions?

Do you believe every member of our armed forces should be considered a danger since the actions of McVeigh make them part of a group?

 

[Wyatt earp]

One thing stood out in the court arguments . When asked if the ban was not reviewable he said "yes".

Seriously ? So Trump is the be all end all? Since when is there no checks n balances ?

Feel free to point where the law defers to anyones judgment other than the president.View attachment 111714

Show me in the law where anyone else in given a say, where does it say what a judge may deem to be appropriate?

"Detrimental " is part of that . Trump doesn't have a reason that fits . It's not like we just declared war on those countries .

The con says you can't discriminate based on religion /race . If that's what he's doing, his ban in unconstitutional.

They are 7 terrorists worn torn messed up countries..

And he is not doing it on race/religion..

Let me guess if this was 1944 you would have no problem letting in Germans and Japanese?

Are we at war with these places ? Then you'd have a point .

 

[Care4all]

What the President needs to do now is address the issue on 2 fronts.

1) Create a new EO and have it implemented immediately.

2) Continue the appellate process to the SCOTUS after Gorsuch is seated for the current EO. The current finding of the 9th circuit needs to be vacated for several reasons. States have no standing in a suit brought by non-citizens against the Federal government. Such jurisdiction rests solely with the Federal government as per the Constitution.

Non-citizens of the US, regardless of visa status, have no inherent right of entry or re-entry into the US as per statute.

legal immigrants who live here, do have all constitutional rights designated for ''persons'' under the State gvt's jurisdiction.... I believe he can still evict them, but only with due process, is my understanding.

That's not what Pupps said. Read it again. The issue is entry and that is what the EO pertains to. Leave and you're no longer legally within the US and have no right to enter at your whim. Once adjudicated correctly, the original EO will stand and the 9th's ruling will be vacated.

This is where they live, this is their legal home, and they are still under the State's jurisdiction... as much as any citizen is, that travel's temporarily, abroad.

 

[Wyatt earp]

One thing stood out in the court arguments . When asked if the ban was not reviewable he said "yes".

Seriously ? So Trump is the be all end all? Since when is there no checks n balances ?

Feel free to point where the law defers to anyones judgment other than the president.View attachment 111714

Show me in the law where anyone else in given a say, where does it say what a judge may deem to be appropriate?

"Detrimental " is part of that . Trump doesn't have a reason that fits . It's not like we just declared war on those countries .

The con says you can't discriminate based on religion /race . If that's what he's doing, his ban in unconstitutional.

They are 7 terrorists worn torn messed up countries..

And he is not doing it on race/religion..

Let me guess if this was 1944 you would have no problem letting in Germans and Japanese?

Are we at war with these places ? Then you'd have a point .

Sudan: U.S. Broke International Law By Killing Civilians With Drones - Rights Groups
Tagged:

• East Africa
• External Relations
• Legal Affairs
• Sudan
• U.S., Canada and Africa

Tweet
Share
Google+


By Reuters
Washington — Human rights groups on Tuesday accused the United States of breaking international law and perhaps committing war crimes by killing civilians in missile and drone strikes that were intended to hit militants in Pakistan and Yemen.


Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch released separate reports detailing the deaths of dozens of civilians in the two countries. They urged the Obama administration and Congress to investigate, and end a policy of secrecy on the attacks.


...

 

[Care4all]

Even illegal Mexicans let alone foreigners with green cards, that live here, have due process rights... the courts have ruled over the years as constitutional.

 

[Wyatt earp]

What the President needs to do now is address the issue on 2 fronts.

1) Create a new EO and have it implemented immediately.

2) Continue the appellate process to the SCOTUS after Gorsuch is seated for the current EO. The current finding of the 9th circuit needs to be vacated for several reasons. States have no standing in a suit brought by non-citizens against the Federal government. Such jurisdiction rests solely with the Federal government as per the Constitution.

Non-citizens of the US, regardless of visa status, have no inherent right of entry or re-entry into the US as per statute.

legal immigrants who live here, do have all constitutional rights designated for ''persons'' under the State gvt's jurisdiction.... I believe he can still evict them, but only with due process, is my understanding.

That's not what Pupps said. Read it again. The issue is entry and that is what the EO pertains to. Leave and you're no longer legally within the US and have no right to enter at your whim. Once adjudicated correctly, the original EO will stand and the 9th's ruling will be vacated.

US accused of killing 22 Somali soldiers and civilians

October 11, 2016 by Jessica Purkiss

Email this


US Special Forces AC-130 gunships have been the primary platform for attacks in Somalia

Somali officials have claimed that the US killed 22 local soldiers and civilians in a drone strike that hit the north-central city of Galkayo late last month.

The US has confirmed it conducted a strike in the area on the same date, but claims all those killed were members of the Islamist militant group al Shabaab.

According to a press release from US Africa command, Somali forces were disrupting a bomb-making network when they were attacked by a group of al Shabaab fighters. The US intervened to “neutralize the threat”.

 

[Wry Catcher]

One thing stood out in the court arguments . When asked if the ban was not reviewable he said "yes".

Seriously ? So Trump is the be all end all? Since when is there no checks n balances ?

Feel free to point where the law defers to anyones judgment other than the president.View attachment 111714

Show me in the law where anyone else in given a say, where does it say what a judge may deem to be appropriate?

"Detrimental " is part of that . Trump doesn't have a reason that fits . It's not like we just declared war on those countries .

The con says you can't discriminate based on religion /race . If that's what he's doing, his ban in unconstitutional.

They are 7 terrorists worn torn messed up countries..

And he is not doing it on race/religion..

Let me guess if this was 1944 you would have no problem letting in Germans and Japanese?

Are we at war with these places ? Then you'd have a point .

Where's are drones at killing people right now?

The Commander-in-Chief has ordered them home, and to use their weapons at the leadership - mayors and members of city counsels - in Sanctuary Cities.

 

[OKTexas]

One thing stood out in the court arguments . When asked if the ban was not reviewable he said "yes".

Seriously ? So Trump is the be all end all? Since when is there no checks n balances ?

Feel free to point where the law defers to anyones judgment other than the president.View attachment 111714

Show me in the law where anyone else in given a say, where does it say what a judge may deem to be appropriate?

Cherry Picked ^^^ and a lie by omission:

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

See (3) Security and Related Grounds

See (3) B, they have every right to determine if the people being admitted are terrorist or have terrorist ties, how do you do that if the home countries have no effective central government and really have no idea who is in their country or where they came from? That was the whole purpose of the hold, they want to review how these people are vetted, it was for a whole 90 days, is that unreasonable?

(B)Terrorist activities
section 2339D(c)(1) of title 18) from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(IX)
is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under this subparagraph, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years,
 is inadmissible. An alien who is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered, for purposes of this chapter, to be engaged in a terrorist activity.

One thing stood out in the court arguments . When asked if the ban was not reviewable he said "yes".

Seriously ? So Trump is the be all end all? Since when is there no checks n balances ?

Feel free to point where the law defers to anyones judgment other than the president.View attachment 111714

Show me in the law where anyone else in given a say, where does it say what a judge may deem to be appropriate?

Cherry Picked ^^^ and a lie by omission:

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

See (3) Security and Related Grounds

See (3) B, they have every right to determine if the people being admitted are terrorist or have terrorist ties, how do you do that if the home countries have no effective central government and really have no idea who is in their country or where they came from? That was the whole purpose of the hold, they want to review how these people are vetted, it was for a whole 90 days, is that unreasonable?

B:
(I) has engaged in a terrorist activity;
(II) a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity (as defined in clause (iv));
(III) has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity;
(IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of—
(aa) a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(bb) a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity;
(V) is a member of a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi);
(VI) is a member of a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the alien can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alien did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization;
(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;
(VIII) has received military-type training (as defined in section 2339D(c)(1) of title 18) from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(IX) is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under this subparagraph, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years,
 is inadmissible. An alien who is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered, for purposes of this chapter, to be engaged in a terrorist activity.

Do you believe every person who is a citizen in the seven countries designated meet one or more of these restrictions?

Do you believe every member of our armed forces should be considered a danger since the actions of McVeigh make them part of a group?

Answer the questions I asked and I'll be happy to answer yours.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Feel free to point where the law defers to anyones judgment other than the president.View attachment 111714

Show me in the law where anyone else in given a say, where does it say what a judge may deem to be appropriate?

"Detrimental " is part of that . Trump doesn't have a reason that fits . It's not like we just declared war on those countries .

The con says you can't discriminate based on religion /race . If that's what he's doing, his ban in unconstitutional.

They are 7 terrorists worn torn messed up countries..

And he is not doing it on race/religion..

Let me guess if this was 1944 you would have no problem letting in Germans and Japanese?

Are we at war with these places ? Then you'd have a point .

Where's are drones at killing people right now?

The Commander-in-Chief has ordered them home, and to use their weaponsw at the leadership - mayors and members of city counsels - in Sanctuary Cities.

After all the Messiah was the one who targeted and killed 3 U. S. Citizens with drones..

Why didn't the 9th say anything about that?


.

 

[Wry Catcher]

One thing stood out in the court arguments . When asked if the ban was not reviewable he said "yes".

Seriously ? So Trump is the be all end all? Since when is there no checks n balances ?

Feel free to point where the law defers to anyones judgment other than the president.View attachment 111714

Show me in the law where anyone else in given a say, where does it say what a judge may deem to be appropriate?

Cherry Picked ^^^ and a lie by omission:

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

See (3) Security and Related Grounds

See (3) B, they have every right to determine if the people being admitted are terrorist or have terrorist ties, how do you do that if the home countries have no effective central government and really have no idea who is in their country or where they came from? That was the whole purpose of the hold, they want to review how these people are vetted, it was for a whole 90 days, is that unreasonable?

(B)Terrorist activities
section 2339D(c)(1) of title 18) from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(IX)
is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under this subparagraph, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years,
 is inadmissible. An alien who is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered, for purposes of this chapter, to be engaged in a terrorist activity.

One thing stood out in the court arguments . When asked if the ban was not reviewable he said "yes".

Seriously ? So Trump is the be all end all? Since when is there no checks n balances ?

Feel free to point where the law defers to anyones judgment other than the president.View attachment 111714

Show me in the law where anyone else in given a say, where does it say what a judge may deem to be appropriate?

Cherry Picked ^^^ and a lie by omission:

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

See (3) Security and Related Grounds

See (3) B, they have every right to determine if the people being admitted are terrorist or have terrorist ties, how do you do that if the home countries have no effective central government and really have no idea who is in their country or where they came from? That was the whole purpose of the hold, they want to review how these people are vetted, it was for a whole 90 days, is that unreasonable?

B:
(I) has engaged in a terrorist activity;
(II) a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity (as defined in clause (iv));
(III) has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity;
(IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of—
(aa) a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(bb) a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity;
(V) is a member of a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi);
(VI) is a member of a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the alien can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alien did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization;
(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;
(VIII) has received military-type training (as defined in section 2339D(c)(1) of title 18) from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(IX) is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under this subparagraph, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years,
 is inadmissible. An alien who is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered, for purposes of this chapter, to be engaged in a terrorist activity.

Do you believe every person who is a citizen in the seven countries designated meet one or more of these restrictions?

Do you believe every member of our armed forces should be considered a danger since the actions of McVeigh make them part of a group?

Answer the questions I asked and I'll be happy to answer yours.

I don't play that game.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"Detrimental " is part of that . Trump doesn't have a reason that fits . It's not like we just declared war on those countries .

The con says you can't discriminate based on religion /race . If that's what he's doing, his ban in unconstitutional.

They are 7 terrorists worn torn messed up countries..

And he is not doing it on race/religion..

Let me guess if this was 1944 you would have no problem letting in Germans and Japanese?

Are we at war with these places ? Then you'd have a point .

Where's are drones at killing people right now?

The Commander-in-Chief has ordered them home, and to use their weaponsw at the leadership - mayors and members of city counsels - in Sanctuary Cities.

After all the Messiah was the one who targeted and killed 3 U. S. Citizens with drones..

Why didn't the 9th say anything about that?


.

Dumb question.

 

[OKTexas]

Feel free to point where the law defers to anyones judgment other than the president.View attachment 111714

Show me in the law where anyone else in given a say, where does it say what a judge may deem to be appropriate?

Cherry Picked ^^^ and a lie by omission:

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

See (3) Security and Related Grounds

See (3) B, they have every right to determine if the people being admitted are terrorist or have terrorist ties, how do you do that if the home countries have no effective central government and really have no idea who is in their country or where they came from? That was the whole purpose of the hold, they want to review how these people are vetted, it was for a whole 90 days, is that unreasonable?

(B)Terrorist activities
section 2339D(c)(1) of title 18) from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(IX)
is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under this subparagraph, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years,
 is inadmissible. An alien who is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered, for purposes of this chapter, to be engaged in a terrorist activity.

Feel free to point where the law defers to anyones judgment other than the president.View attachment 111714

Show me in the law where anyone else in given a say, where does it say what a judge may deem to be appropriate?

Cherry Picked ^^^ and a lie by omission:

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

See (3) Security and Related Grounds

See (3) B, they have every right to determine if the people being admitted are terrorist or have terrorist ties, how do you do that if the home countries have no effective central government and really have no idea who is in their country or where they came from? That was the whole purpose of the hold, they want to review how these people are vetted, it was for a whole 90 days, is that unreasonable?

B:
(I) has engaged in a terrorist activity;
(II) a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity (as defined in clause (iv));
(III) has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity;
(IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of—
(aa) a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(bb) a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity;
(V) is a member of a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi);
(VI) is a member of a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the alien can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alien did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization;
(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;
(VIII) has received military-type training (as defined in section 2339D(c)(1) of title 18) from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(IX) is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under this subparagraph, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years,
 is inadmissible. An alien who is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered, for purposes of this chapter, to be engaged in a terrorist activity.

Do you believe every person who is a citizen in the seven countries designated meet one or more of these restrictions?

Do you believe every member of our armed forces should be considered a danger since the actions of McVeigh make them part of a group?

Answer the questions I asked and I'll be happy to answer yours.

I don't play that game.

Great, then feel free to stew in your ignorance, you pathetic snowflakes are getting monotonous anyways.

 

[Wyatt earp]

They are 7 terrorists worn torn messed up countries..

And he is not doing it on race/religion..

Let me guess if this was 1944 you would have no problem letting in Germans and Japanese?

Are we at war with these places ? Then you'd have a point .

Where's are drones at killing people right now?

The Commander-in-Chief has ordered them home, and to use their weaponsw at the leadership - mayors and members of city counsels - in Sanctuary Cities.

After all the Messiah was the one who targeted and killed 3 U. S. Citizens with drones..

Why didn't the 9th say anything about that?


.

Dumb question.

Why you brought up Obama killing U. S. Citizens with drones not me.

Oh yeah you forgot... With your selective memory


.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Are we at war with these places ? Then you'd have a point .

Where's are drones at killing people right now?

The Commander-in-Chief has ordered them home, and to use their weaponsw at the leadership - mayors and members of city counsels - in Sanctuary Cities.

After all the Messiah was the one who targeted and killed 3 U. S. Citizens with drones..

Why didn't the 9th say anything about that?


.

Dumb question.

Why you brought up Obama killing U. S. Citizens with drones not me.

Oh yeah you forgot... With your selective memory


.

No, I didn't forget - Bush allowed for the death of Timothy McVeigh by lethal injection, and obama sent drones to kill the head of the snakes, i.e. terrorist organizations.

My comment was sarcastic, I hope. With trump, who knows what he may do.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Where's are drones at killing people right now?

The Commander-in-Chief has ordered them home, and to use their weaponsw at the leadership - mayors and members of city counsels - in Sanctuary Cities.

After all the Messiah was the one who targeted and killed 3 U. S. Citizens with drones..

Why didn't the 9th say anything about that?


.

Dumb question.

Why you brought up Obama killing U. S. Citizens with drones not me.

Oh yeah you forgot... With your selective memory


.

No, I didn't forget - Bush allowed for the death of Timothy McVeigh by lethal injection, and obama sent drones to kill the head of the snakes, i.e. terrorist organizations.

My comment was sarcastic, I hope. With trump, who knows what he may do.

What does that have to do with Obama playing judge, jury and executioner with three American citizens?



Dude he blew them the fuck up..

 

[Wry Catcher]

dershowitz isn't liberal.

Alan Dershowitz - Wikipedia

They say he is a liberal.

It's an easy mistake, he's very intelligent, he must be liberal.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Commander-in-Chief has ordered them home, and to use their weaponsw at the leadership - mayors and members of city counsels - in Sanctuary Cities.

After all the Messiah was the one who targeted and killed 3 U. S. Citizens with drones..

Why didn't the 9th say anything about that?


.

Dumb question.

Why you brought up Obama killing U. S. Citizens with drones not me.

Oh yeah you forgot... With your selective memory


.

No, I didn't forget - Bush allowed for the death of Timothy McVeigh by lethal injection, and obama sent drones to kill the head of the snakes, i.e. terrorist organizations.

My comment was sarcastic, I hope. With trump, who knows what he may do.

What does that have to do with Obama playing judge, jury and executioner with three American citizens?



Dude he blew them the fuck up..

Do you know there names? Do you know what they have done? Do you know what they have planned?

Do you know the name of the 8 year old Americana girl killed last week in the same raid authorized by trump which cost the life of Chief Petty Officer William 'Ryan' Owens?

 

[saveliberty]

dershowitz isn't liberal.

Alan Dershowitz - Wikipedia

They say he is a liberal.

It's an easy mistake, he's very intelligent, he must be liberal.

...or YOU cold be a liberal liar, which is far more likely.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
no, I think THERE WAS an exception for Christians escaping
brutality in the E/O??? At least that is what I believe I heard on the news....?

Stop watching fake news, Comrade.

There is no exception for Christians from the 7 mentioned countries. I would not be at all surprised to find the Soros controlled press is blatantly lying about it, though.

 

[Care4all]

[
no, I think THERE WAS an exception for Christians escaping
brutality in the E/O??? At least that is what I believe I heard on the news....?

Stop watching fake news, Comrade.

There is no exception for Christians from the 7 mentioned countries. I would not be at all surprised to find the Soros controlled press is blatantly lying about it, though.

this was part of the E/O...and it must be talking about all other countries but the 7 until after the 90 day ban is lifted??

• Prioritized refugee claims on the basis of religious persecution, so long as the applicant belongs to a religion that is a minority in their country of origin. This provision would allow the White House to prioritize Christians from the Middle East over Muslims. In fiscal year 2016, the US accepted 37,521 Christian and 38,901 Muslim refugees. Since 2001, the US has accepted nearly 400,000 Christian refugees and 279,000 Muslim refugees.
  
  Is this a Muslim ban? Trump's executive order explained