The never-ending POTUS Election thread....

[peplaw06]

And by the way Pep, its not the "right" of people around the world to fucking immigrate here whenever they want.

Immigration was set up to benefit the COUNTRY, not to benefit the WORLD.

People who are in the country legally with green cards have rights because of their status. They were adversely affected by this EO.

It's contrary to the US Code section (unlawful) to deny an immigrant entry on the basis of nationality, place of birth, or place of residence. So it's unlawful.

 

[peplaw06]

It's "stifling liberty" to follow 8USC 1182 when it comes to foreign nationals who aren't citizens?

If you don't follow 8 USC 1152, yes.

 

[peplaw06]

What rights is the government infringing on in this instance? Do non-citizens who may have never stepped foot in the US have any right to citizenship or a visa? It's far more different than your comparison with the Second Amendment.

They have the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of nationality.

 

[peplaw06]

However, one of my expectations of the government is to defend and protect its citizens and I want the governments responsibilities to be as lean as possible so they can do their job well (I know, complete pipe dream). Given the state of the world, it seems acceptable to do everything reasonably possible to prevent people from coming into the US that want to harm and kill americans. I don't think its unreasonable to believe there are folks who would like to use our immigration policy as an opportunity to gain access to the US.

That's the same excuse FDR gave for putting the Japanese into internment camps. It's the same excuse Hitler gave for putting Jews in concentration camps. It's the same excuse the Patriot Act was made law, resulting in the indiscriminate spying on American citizens by the government. It's the same reason Apple was sued by the FBI to break into the phone of the San Bernardino attacker.

Security.

When you say it's acceptable to do "everything reasonably possible," what does that not include? Where is the line you don't want the government to cross? Rounding up American citizens? What if they're Muslim? What if they are actual citizens from one of the 7 banned countries? If a precedent is set for rights to be taken in the name of security, who is going to be the check on the government? What happens when Christians start being targeted? Or gun owners? Or ginger football coaches? (ok, the ends justifies the means there)...

 

[Dodger12]

They have the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of nationality.

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

ISIS has told the world they will infiltrate the West through the refugees. The CIA has told us the same thing. At some point, common sense needs to prevail. In addition, Trump did not select seven countries, but rather Congress and the Department of Homeland Security had singled out these countries under the Obama Administration. So claiming Trump is imposing a Muslim ban and is discriminating against Muslims when these countries were, in fact, singled out by Congress and Obama is a stretch.

No doubt the EO will be scrutinized by the courts but I agree with the President's message. Enough with the lunacy already.

 

[yimyammer]

That's the same excuse FDR gave for putting the Japanese into internment camps. It's the same excuse Hitler gave for putting Jews in concentration camps. It's the same excuse the Patriot Act was made law, resulting in the indiscriminate spying on American citizens by the government. It's the same reason Apple was sued by the FBI to break into the phone of the San Bernardino attacker.

Security.

When you say it's acceptable to do "everything reasonably possible," what does that not include? Where is the line you don't want the government to cross? Rounding up American citizens? What if they're Muslim? What if they are actual citizens from one of the 7 banned countries? If a precedent is set for rights to be taken in the name of security, who is going to be the check on the government? What happens when Christians start being targeted? Or gun owners? Or ginger football coaches? (ok, the ends justifies the means there)...

Thats way off what I was referring to but I think you mistook my intent because I was conflating immigrant with refugee as you pointed out above.

I was specifically talking about wanting the government to heavily vet who gets into this country whether they are on a visa or refugee. If they have a green card, then I would presume they have already been vetted & shouldn't be kept from coming and going from the US.

I'm not for interning any American citizen including green card holders (if thats a distinction)

I feel its reasonable to thoroughly vet refugees who want to enter the US from conflict zones that have people who no doubt want to enter the US and wreak havoc. How they separate the wheat from the chaff in a place like Syria seems quite daunting to me considering they're unlikely to have any verifiable documentation.

How do you think refugees should be treated?

 

[dbair1967]

Rep. Amash (R-Mich) says it better than I can...

He says "We still should admit well vetted persons."

That's the reason for the temporary ban, because those persons are not being "well vetted". Trump has said repeatedly once a better vetting process is in place, there wont be a ban.

 

[peplaw06]

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

ISIS has told the world they will infiltrate the West through the refugees. The CIA has told us the same thing. At some point, common sense needs to prevail. In addition, Trump did not select seven countries, but rather Congress and the Department of Homeland Security had singled out these countries under the Obama Administration. So claiming Trump is imposing a Muslim ban and is discriminating against Muslims when these countries were, in fact, singled out by Congress and Obama is a stretch.

No doubt the EO will be scrutinized by the courts but I agree with the President's message. Enough with the lunacy already.

"It's not lawful to ban immigrants because of "nationality, place of birth, or place of residence." This nondiscrimination provision comes from a 1965 law (8 U.S.C. 1152 Sec. 202(a)(1)(A)) that limits the 1952 law (8 U.S.C. 1182 Sec. 212(f)) that the president cites." - Rep. Amash (see above)

 

[peplaw06]

Thats way off what I was referring to but I think you mistook my intent because I was conflating immigrant with refugee as you pointed out above.

I was specifically talking about wanting the government to heavily vet who gets into this country whether they are on a visa or refugee. If they have a green card, then I would presume they have already been vetted & shouldn't be kept from coming and going from the US.

I'm not for interning any American citizen including green card holders (if thats a distinction)

I feel its reasonable to thoroughly vet refugees who want to enter the US from conflict zones that have people who no doubt want to enter the US and wreak havoc. How they separate the wheat from the chaff in a place like Syria seems quite daunting to me considering they're unlikely to have any verifiable documentation.

How do you think refugees should be treated?

I think they should be vetted... and they are. Currently it takes years to get to the US as a refugee because of the vetting process. And despite all the consternation of vetting refugees over the past 12 months or so, there hasn't been a refugee come through the vetting process during that time who has come over here and done us harm. So it would appear to me the vetting process is working.

And Trump's roll out of the EO has been a disaster (to use his own words)... it's at the very least clumsy. Initially, green card holders were not excepted. Immigrants vs. nonimmigrants vs. refugee, there was no distinction. Now they've backtracked and excepted certain people... but it's all something that could have been avoided with a measured, thoughtful roll out. Perhaps he should have brought in experts on the matter, like the AG's office, to try to craft an EO that didn't look like this. It could have been done quickly, and probably without letting the cat out of the bag.

When I talk about "rights," I understand refugees have no rights here. "Immigrants" is a different story. And we should want to accept thoroughly vetted refugees though and not set out to demonize millions of people. We didn't do that.

Is it too much to ask for the leader of the country to be measured in his actions? The President shouldn't be one susceptible to flights of fancy, being set off by an insulting tweet. The guy is a loose cannon, and he's going to get the country into problems we should be avoiding.

 

[peplaw06]

He says "We still should admit well vetted persons."

That's the reason for the temporary ban, because those persons are not being "well vetted". Trump has said repeatedly once a better vetting process is in place, there wont be a ban.

What is wrong with the vetting process? We haven't had any terrorist attacks from refugees from these 7 countries as far as I can tell. We have had terrorist attacks from people from other countries (I don't think refugees), which were not on the banned list. But we don't want to upset the Saudis.

This is all for show. And as such, it's beneath the dignity of the office of the President -- at least it used to be.

 

[yimyammer]

So it would appear to me the vetting process is working.

Until it doesn't and then you know damn well all hell would break lose and democrats everywhere would be feasting on the tragedy to show how Trump isn't keeping people safe.

And I don't say this to dismiss your point, I just think we can never rest on how we screen for potential terrorists. Given the chaos in many of the countries in question, I cant help but wonder how they reliably vet anyone from those countries.

Hell, I just watched an ISIS video where they had what looked to be kids under 10 years old clearing a building and killing these poor souls who were tied up and ready for the easy slaughter. Those fuckers are batshit crazy and I have no doubt they'd love to get some of their nutbars in the US and using one of these kids would be a way to sneak someone into the US we would be reluctant to mistrust. Hopefully the vetting process is sufficient but I cant help but believe something will get through someday soon, it seems inevitable in an imperfect system.

I'm honestly more concerned about the Visa process as it seems like an easier route for an extremist to go.

Speaking of the immigrant vs refugee definition, do you have a link to a source that defines what an immigrant is in the US? Is a green card holder an immigrant? & do they have the same rights as a US citizen?

Seems to me the vetting should be equal for visas, green cards or naturalization, regardless of the country of origin with perhaps some unique exceptions for places in complete disarray like Syria (and I'm not singling out Syria because its predominately muslim, its because the war has turned the place to rubble leaving what appears to be no reliable organizations from which to get reliable and accurate information from)

 

[yimyammer]

What is wrong with the vetting process? We haven't had any terrorist attacks from refugees from these 7 countries as far as I can tell.

Maybe nothing, but we haven't let many people from Syria into the country until Obamas last year in office and as I have mentioned, I don't think its unreasonable to wonder if its more difficult to vet someone from Syria (given the chaos) vs someone from Great Britain.



Source

Hopefully there was no let up in the vetting process when the numbers rose significantly in the last 15 months, which I've heard was the result of pressure put on Obama because of low numbers prior to 2016

 

[yimyammer]

And Trump's roll out of the EO has been a disaster (to use his own words)... it's at the very least clumsy.

agreed

Is it too much to ask for the leader of the country to be measured in his actions?

one would hope

He's making our boy Gary Johnson look better by the day but I'm sure he would have given the folks that love recreational outrage plenty to chew on.

 

[Dodger12]

"It's not lawful to ban immigrants because of "nationality, place of birth, or place of residence." This nondiscrimination provision comes from a 1965 law (8 U.S.C. 1152 Sec. 202(a)(1)(A)) that limits the 1952 law (8 U.S.C. 1182 Sec. 212(f)) that the president cites." - Rep. Amash (see above)

The Executive Order does not mention any country by name with the exception of Syria and only then in reference to refugees.

"aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order"

Pretty funny to claim Trump is discriminating when he makes reference to a bill passed by Congress and the previous President.

 

[NoMoRedJ]

And Trump's roll out of the EO has been a disaster (to use his own words)... it's at the very least clumsy.

The main stream media and Soros want it to appear that way but it really hasnt been a problem. The disaster has been the DimoRats and how they've conducted themselves trying to make Trump look bad.

Well over 300, 000 people got thru just fine and the reported 109 that were held up in the process would not qualify as a disaster.

Its a manufactured disaster by the media and liberals. Nothing more. No matter how many crocodile tears Schumer can muster.

 

[NoMoRedJ]

 

[Sheik]

I'm good with the temporary ban. I wish it was a moratorium on immigration tho.

I heard Sean Spicer defending it today and he's right. There may not be an imminent threat hanging out there from one of these countries, but I'd rather the administration look at the vetting process now to determine if it's good enough before a threat makes itself known in a crowded area my kids or wife may be occupying.

Imo, nobody has a right to enter America, it's a privilege. I lock my doors at night not because I know someone would walk through my door, I do it because a mfer could if it's unlocked. This uproar is completely ridiculous. All these people crying at airports, why? Because you couldn't make it onto US soil to overstay a visa, or shit out a baby to trap America?

id start issuing pregnancy tests as a qualifier. If you're pregnant, come back after that turd hits the ground in your country.

 

[NoMoRedJ]

I'm good with the temporary ban. I wish it was a moratorium on immigration tho.

I heard Sean Spicer defending it today and he's right. There may not be an imminent threat hanging out there from one of these countries, but I'd rather the administration look at the vetting process now to determine if it's good enough before a threat makes itself known in a crowded area my kids or wife may be occupying.

Imo, nobody has a right to enter America, it's a privilege. I lock my doors at night not because I know someone would walk through my door, I do it because a mfer could if it's unlocked. This uproar is completely ridiculous. All these people crying at airports, why? Because you couldn't make it onto US soil to overstay a visa, or shit out a baby to trap America?

id start issuing pregnancy tests as a qualifier. If you're pregnant, come back after that turd hits the ground in your country.

Cold and heartless driven by fear and hate. Where's your compassion for fellow human beings that deserve to be here just as much as we do?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

he can she liniking the two two
where there she laiddg it then

 

[dbair1967]

What is wrong with the vetting process? We haven't had any terrorist attacks from refugees from these 7 countries as far as I can tell. We have had terrorist attacks from people from other countries (I don't think refugees), which were not on the banned list. But we don't want to upset the Saudis.

This is all for show. And as such, it's beneath the dignity of the office of the President -- at least it used to be.

Unless you can absolutely guarantee none of those people here now are plotting something, this is just pure conjecture on your part. Just because they might not have blown something up so far, doesn't mean they arnt here already and plotting to do something. ISIS has repeatedly said they would use the refugee policy to smuggle their terrorists into countries in Europe and here, and we know for a fact some of the terrorists in Europe that did attack came to those countries this way.

We know for a fact some of these people are bad. Why bring any of them here unless you are 100% sure you can keep them out. Simply asking them to sign a piece a paper that says "are you going to blow us up?" is a fucking joke Pep.