DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Afghanistan Girls Robotic Team Denied Visas: #MakeAmericaXenophibicAgain

Don't get me wrong, I'm for the travel ban. But let's cut the BS here.

Trump has been in the White House for over five months now. You can review any and all vetting processes at any point in time. You can do that whether a travel ban is currently under way or not. It's not an either and or thing. He's had over five months to review the vetting process. Unless of course you're trying to tell me they can't chew gum and walk at the same time.

On the other hand, the left is spewing BS. There are 50 majority Muslim countries. Trying to stop people from the 6 Muslim countries that pose the biggest risk of terrorism is NOT some attempt at the Muslim ban. The math alone shows how moronic that is.

So both sides are spewing BS on this issue. If the SCOTUS upholds the 90 ban, then the ban is legal and will be extended because there is nothing that has prevented a review of our vetting process over the past five plus moths. It has nothing to do with a review of the vetting process. And it also isn't about a Muslim ban as the left has claimed.

We've just been fed a bunch of BS from both sides when the actual goal is to prevent travel from the six nations that pose the biggest risk of creating terrorism in our nation. Which makes sense to me.

The one glaring problem is that 15 of the terrorists that created the deaths and chaos of 9/11 on our nation were from Saudi Arabia. A nation conveniently left off the list.

At that time, our immigration system may have been, show up, declare that you want to be an immigrant and you are in.

It's not that way now, and we do need rules that are enforced by all, equally. The law passed in 86 needs to be discarded. But you won't get anyone in Washington to agree on a set of rules, or admit that they created the mess that they complain about.

You know man, it's talk like that makes me wonder about you. I like to think we have had a pretty good relationship over the years. We have had some good conversations. We don't always agree, but there was always respect.

I hope that continues, but you need to quit talking like that. That is simply irresponsibe talk that loses me.

The longer people keep bringing up race, the longer it will perpetuate as a problem.

The beauty of these boards is I don't know what race you guy's are. Never really cared or thought about it. If we met and I saw you were a black man, it wouldn't be OMG, YOU ARE BLACK! LOL....give me a little credit.

To me this place is like a big bar. We shoot the crap, say things we don't mean, and when we do, we/you let it slide to a point, because we are all buddies. Even buddies fight from time to time as long as we keep it above the belt and keep buying beers for all when it is our turn.

I seriously doubt we'd buy beers.

More like id get everybody drunk off shots.

Just a figure of speech.

I have had years of experience and have developed a tolerance...I can hammer 'em back man.

Maybe one day we will do that! Soon I hope.

Now that would be a table I'd find most interesting.
I'd pitch in my share of rounds to sit there...

Agreed. This has nothing to do about race. It is about protecting our citizens of all races from illegals from other country's. When the towers fell on 9/11. It was not black, white, or any other color of people that died. It was Americans. When terrorists perpetrate their crimes they don't single out any race they single out citizens of our country.

The entire immigration argument is not about race. It is about committing crimes against America. It is about keeping drug cartel gang members out the country.

We are Americans. We are made up of people of every color in the world, every religion in the world, every political view in the world. We accept all immigrants into our country that wants to become citizens. We just want you to do it the right way. The legal way.

We can help people, and we should ...... however, the country also has a responsibility to keep its citizens safe. Unfortunately, in today's world, that means taking a more extensive look at those coming from certain parts of the world. There have been suicide attacks all over the globe. One sect of Islam commits suicide attacks against another.

It is foolish not to look at who we allow into our country. Those we allow in have to be willing to become part of our country, and communities. These countries, in the Trump ban, are the same countries that Obama targeted for special restrictions, and in fact, Obama had signed legislation restricting access to people who had traveled to Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria after March 2011, and he added Libya, Somalia, and Yemen, to address "the growing threat from foreign terrorist fighters." Yes, that was an Obama quote.

When Obama did it, no one said a word. When Trump did it, It's racist and a horrifying misuse of executive power.

DHS Announces Further Travel Restrictions for the Visa Waiver Program | Homeland Security
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-restrictions-visa-waiver-program

I just fail to see how his campaign slogan made any sense?

In the years under Obama we saw rapid social progress. Women's rights became more apparent in the local discussion, consenting adults finally found themselves able to marry the partner of their choice, refugees from other lands found success due to our already extreme vetting process (hello, Toledo!), the actual concept of justice in law enforcement practices finally received some discussion, and a greater emphasis got shone on the vast inequality of wealth in our country. I felt we were on the track to greatness.

The new boss? Well, he quells up sentiments of nationalism. Such nationalism that makes people cheer at building some asinine wall; a cost of which could get better spent on actually improving healthcare, education, or a whole other bevy of facets in our country. He looks to ban individuals from a religion that many jump in horror of, and mainly because they've never put themselves in the shoes of others. The world view of many is sooo narrow, and this allows for ridiculous decrees of banning countries.

What is he doing to address police brutality? What is he doing to ensure the rights of same-sex individuals remain? What is he doing to combat the ever growing economic divide? How will he ensure to keep the American public education system in tact? How will he continue to emphasize the respect of women in our country? The list goes on and on...

What he's done or tried to do so far:
-Take 23 million Americans off of insurance.
-Banned seven countries from sending their people here, and not one terroist that has attacked America came from one of those countries.
-Acts like a petulant child when criticism falls on him. #SafeSpaceDonnie
-Claims he'll bring back manufacturing jobs, but he fails to realize robots or cheap labor will prevent them from ever coming back.



Why is discussing race such a bad idea? Law enforcement treats people different based on race and social class.

I pointed out in my post above that there are 50 majority Muslim nations. Limiting travel from six of those nations has nothing to do with "Making America White Again". There will still be 43 Muslim nations this ban does not apply too.

Their math is severely flawed and that saying is nothing but empty rhetoric.

So, should we not learn from the mistakes the Indians made and be a little more selective about who we let through the door? So many people throw out this Indian argument, yet want us to do exactly what they did as if the consequences will be different.

Seems to me if the States want to allow sanctuary cities or even become a sanctuary State, that is fine. That is a States Rights issue.

The Federal Government is now in control of who enters the Country so that is a Federal issue, which is also good.

The Federal Government says sanctuary areas are to be illegal.

If a State has a city or cities that they allow to be sanctuary cities and they are willing to do without Federal Dollars for their State, this is also fine.

If a State decides it would rather have Federal Dollars, it will then shut down any area in its State considered to be a sanctuary.

There is no Sanctuary

I wish I could understand these fellows, their story seems to be about immigration...

https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=674_1498983831

That sounds reasonable to me.

It wasn't that long ago that the feds cut off federal highway funds for not lowering their speed limits to 55 mph.

But it won't be long until Sessions will cut off funds to states that have legalized weed. So everyone needs to get ready for that too.

Well then I best take a second look at it.

I wouldn't put that past old Forrest Grump .... I mean Jeff Sessions

Well then you may wish to look at that pesky second amendment thing, the border wall and the travel ban. Since those are all things I agree with too. lol

Fair point Ted.. but the original 90 travel ban was so that the agencies would have time to scrutinize and make adjustments to our review policies of how we determine who gets such visas, refugee status, etc.. and who doesn't... So that review should be complete or nearly complete by now.. where are the results of that study and why do we need another 90 day ban to study it again?

Or since the ban was not allowed, did we just not study it?

Were I a betting man and had money to bet, I'm guessing the 90 day ban became the next in a never ending procession of political footballs that continuously get kicked around.

It's like soccer, lotta kickin', not a lotta scorin'.

It's true that this could've been studied and done by now, but for the sake of political 'gamesmanship' I highly doubt it was.

And the point DC made is exactly the point I made in a post above.

If the SCOTUS approves this ban as legal, it will be something that will be extended over and over. Because this isn't about reviewing the vetting process. If that were true there has already been time for them to accomplish that.

It about stopping the flow of people from the top 6 terrorist nations on earth. With one resounding omission. Saudi Arabia. 15 of the 9/11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia and they aren't mentioned.

I agree with the travel ban, I'm just not dumb enough to believe it has anything to do with the vetting process.

This is true, but I don't think that even those of us who agree with it will put up with it being extended or renewed beyond a reasonable time frame.

I'll (I should've cried foul that it's not done now) cry foul if it's not done by the time the SC takes the case in the fall.

Trump is president because a lot of people are tired of can kickers, we can't let him kick any cans either.

The United States was barred from studying our vetting problems by the Federal Courts...

TRUMP TRAVEL BAN: JUDGE RULES REVIEW OF U.S. REFUGEE VETTING TO GO AHEAD

The Trump administration has been given the go-ahead by a federal judge in Hawaii to begin reviewing the vetting process for people from six majority-Muslim countries who want to travel to the United States.

On Monday, Judge Derrick Watson of the U.S. District Court rolled back sections of his blanket injunction against President Donald Trump’s travel ban executive order.

This will allow Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly, and the Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats to carry out a worldwide review of how the U.S. collects information and issues visas to travellers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

http://www.newsweek.com/judge-rules-review-us-refugee-vetting-trumps-travel-ban-can-go-ahead-627623

Interesting.. this is from just a couple weeks ago.. so a judge had actually blocked them from studying the vetting process? Wow, one I didn't know a judge could actually do that.. and second... go ahead and start the study now I guess.

I read somewhere the Supreme Court in their 9-0 decision on this have said they are also going to look into the lower court rulings and decision making against the travel ban in order to understand why those lower courts interjected themselves into Executive Branch National Security decisions.

Apparently a big no no when it comes to the Constitutional Rights of the Executive Branch. Possible big time over reach by those courts.

Like that's never happened before.

I wish I could find the article because a Supreme Court insider was commenting on how angry the Supremes were when the lower court stepped into this. Probably what lead to the quick 9-0 ruling!

Hard to track down all the fake news you post and read, eh.

Fake News!
I almost always post my sources. Too bad they don't have links to your snarky comments.

You can post Fox News and National Enquirer all day, doesn't change the fact you post fake news constantly.

Just more useless snarky comments by you.

Just like your thread about china surpassing the US and then your article talks about China selling bonds. Talk about over reach!

Don't worry. The site is big enough for the both of us. I'd hate to step on your toes.

In this video, soldiers are showing the sidewalks covered in hair as ISIS fighters have shaved off their beards and hair in order to escape Syria.
The comment on the video says, next stop Europe.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/30/state-iraqi-refugees-trump-travel-ban-240158

State: Iraqi refugees who aided U.S. not categorically exempt from Trump travel ban
The directive's impact on those who worked for the U.S. military is uncertain.

Iraqis who provided assistance to the U.S. military, military contractors and American news outlets will not be automatically exempt from the 120-day, global halt President Donald Trump has imposed on refugee admissions through his travel ban executive order.

Asked whether individuals in the Direct Access Program for U.S.-Affiliated Iraqis would be categorically exempt from the version of the travel ban the administration began implementing Thursday, a State Department official said that such refugees will be considered on a case-by-case basis

"Claims to bona fide relationships with U.S. entities such as these will be evaluated on a case by case basis," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

About 50,000 Iraqis have pending applications for the specially-targeted refugee program. It's not clear whether they will have to resubmit evidence of their ties to the U.S. or whether the State Department will spontaneously review information it already has on file. Either way, an additional review seems certain to add new delays to an already lengthy process.

The Trump administration's refusal to declare Iraqis in the special program immune from the travel ban is angering refugee advocates and seems likely to provoke a backlash from lawmakers who have intervened before on behalf of Iraqis who are under threat due to their work with U.S. forces.

Congress reads it. Do you?
Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning — in your inbox.
Email
Your email…
Sign Up
By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.
"To even enter the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program through that program, you have to have an adjudication that you're someone who has a bona fide tie to the U.S.," said Becca Heller of the International Refugee Assistance Project. "So, either they don't trust their own adjudications or they're going to send 40,000 or 50,000 people back to repeat a process they've already gone through....It's something of a travesty to add an additional layer of process that is largely redundant with something that already happened. It will just lead to further delays and potential loss of life."

Lawmakers' offices said Friday that they were largely in the dark about how the Trump administration planned to treat Iraqi refugees after the Supreme Court ruled Monday that the travel ban could be partially implemented pending high court arguments in October. The justices said Trump could carry out his ban, but they exempted people who had "a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.

The high court's ruling didn't explicitly say that work with the U.S. military would constitute such a tie. However, refugee advocates say it would be bizarre to exempt people invited to lecture at a U.S. university, as the Supreme Court explicitly did, but leave in the lurch those facing death threats over their work with the U.S.

The impact on the Iraqis also seems odd given that the administration made a special effort to accommodate Iraq earlier this year after the first Trump travel ban order provoked outrage from the Iraqi government as U.S.-advised Iraqi forces prepared an assault on ISIS strongholds in that country. The White House eventually backed down and took Iraq off the list of seven majority-Muslim countries targeted for a 90-day ban on visa issuance.

Heller said any additional hurdles the U.S. creates for the Iraqis, most of whom worked as interpreters for U.S. forces or contractors, will adversely impact the U.S. military's ability to secure similar assistance elsewhere.

"We’re sending 4,000 more troops to Afghanistan. They're all going to need interpreters. This is not great messaging for us," she said. "I promise you that the interpreters in Afghanistan are watching what we do to the interpreters in Iraq. I know they are.:

President Donald Trump’s controversial travel ban takes effect Thursday.
Grandparents blocked by Trump travel ban guidelines
By TED HESSON and NAHAL TOOSI
Immigrant advocates can take some solace in the fact that the Trump administration's implementation of the travel ban seems to be a work in progress. After sending out a diplomatic cable to embassies and consulates Wednesday that excluded fiances from the list of relationships that would allow a foreigner to get around the travel ban, the administration reversed course Thursday evening and added fiances to the list.

Speaking to reporters Thursday, State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert acknowledged concerns about the Iraqis who aided the U.S., but said the process of instituting the travel ban was so rushed that it was difficult to provide clear guidance on that question or others.

"It’s a good question; it’s a valid question," Nauert said in response to a question from Matt Lee of the Associated Press. "I know lots of Iraqis, and particularly those who have worked alongside the United States, will have questions about that. This is all very new. We were in a rush to pull this call together today with our experts so that we could get you all the answers that you want and that you deserve."

Timing issues related to the travel ban also remain confusing.

Nauert said in a statement that the clock for the 120-day refugee halt officially began Thursday, although refugees approved to travel to the U.S. through July 6 may continue as planned. It's still not clear precisely when State will cut off the refugee flow. The administration has said further guidance on that point is forthcoming.

However, a Justice Department spokesman said the 90-day clock for the other key part of the travel ban—a halt to issuance of U.S. visas to citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen —began running on Monday.

Trump has billed the travel ban as an anti-terrorism measure, but critics contend the refugee halt in particular has little logical connection to terrorism because there is virtually no evidence to connect refugees to terrorism in the U.S.

On Thursday, the State of Hawaii asked a federal judge in that state to rule that some aspects of the way the Trump administration is implementing the travel ban are at odds with the Supreme Court's decision and an existing injunction. The judge could rule on that request late next week after getting additional legal briefs from both sides.

I'm sure the Russians are loving how Trump treats the friends of the US.

First, I doubt that your depiction is accurate.

But anytime you make a country like ours change the way we approach things guaranteed in our Constitution, then, yes, they've won.

In what ways have we changed things guaranteed in our Constitution?

Scratching my head. I wonder why Democrates cheered for Clinton when he said
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4351026/clinton-1995-immigration-sotu

You talking about this part?
Bill Clinton
All Americans, not only in the States most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. That's why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens. In the budget I will present to you, we will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes, to better identify illegal aliens in the workplace as recommended by the commission headed by former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.

I can help you with that head itch. This was a time when Democrats and Liberals still thought with their heads instead of their Emotions.

Excellent find. That actually sounds a lot like what Hillary has said even more recently.



"If they've committed transgressions of whatever kind, obviously they should be deported." - HRC

"I voted for border security, and some of it was a fense. I don't think we ever called it a wall. Maybe in some places it was a wall." - HRC


I actually agree with the statements shown in the video. The part that bothered me was her about-face, she knew these were major problems for our country and she sold out to get the Democratic nomination. Sad!

The funny thing is that wasn't even necessary, and she would probably be President right now if she had just maintained her common sense positions on this and similar issues.

To these Liberals, if Trump says it, it is bad. Even if their heroes said it before him.

It has more to do with Hate than reason. Emotion over intelligence.