Trump

[shock]

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment. First, I'm not sure I believe the president doesn't have the constitutional authority to pick whatever country, even without the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Regardless, though, the way I read the INA means that the president can pick any country.



In the executive order, he just cites the list of countries that had been pre-determined, but I don't believe that is necessary.

I don't know. I haven't seen people talking about it in depth. The only media sources available either say "CHECK OUT HOW TRUMP PICKED THESE COUNTRIES BY HIMSELF" or "OBAMA CAUSED THIS MESS."

Should he have picked SA, then?

[jdshock]

Should he have picked SA, then?

I think the whole thing is silly. I obviously wouldn't have banned any of the countries.

I just think it's funny that conservatives are trying to say "yeah this policy is totally necessary. It deals with the exact countries that need to be dealt with." But I had to hear about SA and the rest of the Muslim world for 8 years.

[shock]

I think the whole thing is silly. I obviously wouldn't have banned any of the countries.

I just think it's funny that conservatives are trying to say "yeah this policy is totally necessary. It deals with the exact countries that need to be dealt with." But I had to hear about SA and the rest of the Muslim world for 8 years.

SA is a problem, but it is too tied in with oil to do anything about. When he gets some of the current regulations lifted and get American oil flowing again, then he can re-evaluate US involvement in the middle east. Oil got us into this mess, oil can get us out if it comes from US soil.

[shocka khan]

I think the whole thing is silly. I obviously wouldn't have banned any of the countries.

I just think it's funny that conservatives are trying to say "yeah this policy is totally necessary. It deals with the exact countries that need to be dealt with." But I had to hear about SA and the rest of the Muslim world for 8 years.

I'm not saying I don't disagree, I'm just saying if you're going to make a list of countries where high-risk terrorists live and you leave SA off the list, you're missing the obvious.

Saudi support of Wahabism in its most extreme forms led to a lot of funding for Al-Qaeda. OBL was a Wahabist. There were a lot of Wahabis in SA funding it. There are still offshoots of Al-Qaeda remaining that we are fighting.

However, I don't think banning foreigners will make us safer. Most of the terrorist attacks here were the result of homegrown terrorists (after 9/11). Most of the people involved in the Paris attacks (and other European attacks) were European Muslims. The biggest blind spot we have are homegrown radicals.

This pronouncement will do nothing to eliminate that risk, and given the confrontational nature of Trump, might actually aggravate it.

[John Higgins]

I also don't believe the ban will do much good, nor will the wall, but these were issues that Trump campaigned on. As we are finding out, he's a man of his word. It''s refreshing to see someone get to D.C. and actually do what he said he was going to do.

Right or wrong, agree or disagree, he's making changes and that's what the majority of America wanted (don't give me this popular vote crap either, many Bernie voters wanted change but settled on Hillary.)

[SB Shock]

I was gonna say I bet the acting AG gets fired tomorrow - but she got fired tonight.

[wu_shizzle]

Trump's Muslim ban doesn't apply to several countries where he has business interests. Trump supporters pre-election were adamant Clinton was in the pocket of Saudi Arabia and that Saudi Arabia was obviously an evil country. Now, they are trying to come up with reasons Suadi Arabia, Egypt, etc. should be excluded from the ban.

Are you seriously comparing Saudi Arabia and Egypt to Syria, Somalia, Yemen, etc...?

This is such a weird talking point.

[WuDrWu]

No doubt! I bet they have you up on the wall as an example of a taxpayer not to mess with, after that. You're probably a case study for the incoming recruits.

Post of the year! I'd give you a crisp high five, but it deserves TEN!

[1979Shocker]

Bardo releases statement on Trump immigration policy

https://thesunflower.com/13411/news/bardo-releases-statement-on-trump-immigration-policy/

[1979Shocker]

Immigration ban affected students at Wichita State University

http://ksn.com/2017/01/30/immigration-ban-affected-students-at-wichita-state-university/

[ShockingButTrue]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444418/why-sally-yates-was-fired-insubordination

[jdshock]

Are you seriously comparing Saudi Arabia and Egypt to Syria, Somalia, Yemen, etc...?

This is such a weird talking point.

Nope.

To be fair to the Trump Supporters, Breitbart readers, and Obama critics that were constantly telling us how concerning Saudi Arabia was, though, no one from those seven nations has killed a person on US soil since 1975, and the same can't be said for Saudi Arabia.

[Kung Wu]

Nope.

To be fair to the Trump Supporters, Breitbart readers, and Obama critics that were constantly telling us how concerning Saudi Arabia was, though, no one from those seven nations has killed a person on US soil since 1975, and the same can't be said for Saudi Arabia.

Why do the Americans have to be "on US soil" for it to matter?

[SB Shock]

Under Obama administration those 7 countries were determined to present the highest risk (and the examples in Europe has bore that out).

Btw, Pakistan arrested the organizer of the Mumbai massacre after Trump executive order. They had been under pressure by previous Obama administration, but decided that the Trump administration is likely serious about the terrorism and they figured they better do something before the US decided they needed to be punished for sheltering international terrorists.

[jdshock]

SA is a problem, but it is too tied in with oil to do anything about. When he gets some of the current regulations lifted and get American oil flowing again, then he can re-evaluate US involvement in the middle east. Oil got us into this mess, oil can get us out if it comes from US soil.

I stumbled on this site which lists which countries we import from and export to petroleum products: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=727&t=6

I knew that Canada is the number one provider for petroleum products, but it also says we are exporting close to a million barrels a day to Canada. You might know more about this than I do, but I'm also open to hearing from other people. My guess is that it's not really a scenario where we are getting 3.75 million barrels a day from Canada and we're sending 1 million barrels a day back. In reality, there are some days we get 5 million from them, and other days we send 2 million to them. Is that right? If not, what is the purpose in importing 3.75 to export 1 million?

I say all of this to ask, why couldn't we just stop importing from SA and stop exporting to Canada? The amount we send to Canada is roughly what we are importing from SA. I'm sure this is a naive question, but I just really don't know too much about it.