Trump

[Walker]

I think the thing that gets lost in all of this, is that foreign nationals do not have a right to come this country, it is a privilege that can be withheld when it is deemed necessary. They are not citizens. They do not have constitutional rights within the U.S. I understand the criticism of the left about excluding places like Saudi Arabia and Egypt from the executive order, I personally think there's a strong argument to justify including those countries too. But with leftist anger at this EO including nations that the Obama administration deemed security threats, how much harsher would the criticism be if he did include those countries?

If we wanted to help the actual refugees it would make more sense to help them within their own regions instead of transplanting them into a vastly different world with vastly different customs. It would make much more sense for refugees to be relocated in nearby countries that have similar cultures and customs like Saudi Arabia that have the capacity with their tent cities that are only used during pilgrimages.

Another thing is we become resource independent and could stop meddling in foreign affairs, and stop the whole regime change thing neo-cons are fond of. Yes Hussein, Qaddafi and Assad aren't the greatest people in the world, but are far more preferable to what has filled the vacuum in those places. I hope conservatism returns to the roots of the founders when it comes to foreign affairs.

[shock]

Executive orders are not laws, they are directives to government agencies. Congress approved a list of countries that they say posed the biggest threat to American safety and gave them special vetting procedures, including a religous test, under previous administrations. That list is what Trump has acted on, to make sure that the procedure in place was being followed correctly. He also included a clause that allows the Secretary of State to make special exceptions so known allies could be admitted.

Where this turns into a cluster is when it was signed and the manner which it was implemented. It was singed late in the evening and customs officials on site claim they recieved no warning and wrong intel. It would seem, almost, that they got their intel from TV and social media, not through the chain of command. There is nothing on this order to effect the green card holders. It is just a 90 day stay on immigration from high risk countries already identified.

And about the list- Trump doesn't have the authority to change the countries on it, all he can do is direct how we deal with the countries. Arguing about Saudi Arabia and Egypt and business ties is a red herring from the left to keep controversy going. Trump was a businessman. So are a few other people in this country. That is why those countries were excluded in the past. It would have meant a loss of oil importation (Pic relevent.) With oil supply suddenly cut off, there would have been a spike in price and demand, throwing the US deeper into depression unless foreign dependance was cut off, something the Obama administration was reluctant (to say the least) to do. The Obama administration was more concerned with keeping American companies from drilling here and now to be bothered with national security. Why do you think Saudi Arabia donated to the Clinton Foundation? SA is not a Republican or Democrat relationship, its a Washington establishment relationship. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Clinton would have been a wet dream for the Saudis because of what it means evviornmentally for the existing relationship.

I'm dangerously close to a climate change arguement; I'd rather save that for when the press gets off this immigration stay and onto Trumps climate change denial.

[SHOCKvalue]

Protesting anything Trump does is our reality now. He could say, "save the whales" and there would be a million person march for dolphin's rights tomorrow. The general public will grow tired of this quickly and it could easily blow up in the democrats face at the voting booth again.

I think you are correct, on all accounts.

[SHOCKvalue]

So succinct, it's almost beautiful:

"No foreign national in a foreign land, without ties to the United States, has any unfettered right to demand entry into the United States or to demand immigration benefits in the United States."

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/department-homeland-security-response-recent-litigation

[shocka khan]

Protesting anything Trump does is our reality now. He could say, "save the whales" and there would be a million person march for dolphin's rights tomorrow. The general public will grow tired of this quickly and it could easily blow up in the democrats face at the voting booth again.

I think you're making an overly broad statement without the benefit of facts to back you up. I voted for Trump, but some of his positions and behavior is downright bizzare.

For instance the 'crowds' at his inauguration. People who turn everything into a pi$$ing match might end up getting pi$$ed on themselves.

And then we have all the bullshit regarding popular vote. The guy (from this area), who is pushing this obviously nonsensical notion that 5 million illegals who voted for Hillary in the election owes.....$100K to the IRS himself.

I guess I'd be pi$$ed off at the U. S. Government myself if I tried to stiff them to the tune of $100K and got caught. Hell, they caught me underpaying my taxes by $500 (because of a third-party error) and I settled up with them so quick it made their heads spin.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very amused at Trump's stand on immigration and all the angst its causing, but John McCain and Lindsey Graham are correct when they say this wasn't well thought out. I'm really hoping he gets around to the H1-B visa issue next.

[SHOCKvalue]

Hell, they caught me underpaying my taxes by $500 (because of a third-party error) and I settled up with them so quick it made their heads spin.

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.

[John Higgins]

[QUOTE=shocka khan;695967]I think you're making an overly broad statement without the benefit of facts to back you up.

Time will tell but as of today the facts certainly back it up. He's been in office 11 days and we've seen:

Inauguration protest/rioters
Pu$$y hat marchers
Republican retreat protests in Philly
Malia Obama showing up to join the Dakota pipeline protestors
Mexican wall protests
Sanctuary city protestors
Airport protestors the last few days and tonight

Those are just the ones I recall seeing, I'm sure there has been more.

Trump had an executive order for devising a plan to defeat ISIS and I'm waiting for the protests to start for that!

It may be an overly broad statement I made but unfortunately it isn't that ridiculous based on today's political climate

[jdshock]

[QUOTE=John Higgins;695983]

I think you're making an overly broad statement without the benefit of facts to back you up.

Time will tell but as of today the facts certainly back it up. He's been in office 11 days and we've seen:

Inauguration protest/rioters
Pu$$y hat marchers
Republican retreat protests in Philly
Malia Obama showing up to join the Dakota pipeline protestors
Mexican wall protests
Sanctuary city protestors
Airport protestors the last few days and tonight

Those are just the ones I recall seeing, I'm sure there has been more.

Trump had an executive order for devising a plan to defeat ISIS and I'm waiting for the protests to start for that!

It may be an overly broad statement I made but unfortunately it isn't that ridiculous based on today's political climate

But all of those things are either 1. general opposition to Trump/Trump's agenda type protests or 2. opposition to specific pieces of legislation that liberals have always been opposed to. It's not like a bunch of liberals were out there protesting Trump's withdrawal from the TPP.

[shocka khan]

[QUOTE=John Higgins;695983]

I think you're making an overly broad statement without the benefit of facts to back you up.

Time will tell but as of today the facts certainly back it up. He's been in office 11 days and we've seen:

Inauguration protest/rioters
Pu$$y hat marchers
Republican retreat protests in Philly
Malia Obama showing up to join the Dakota pipeline protestors
Mexican wall protests
Sanctuary city protestors
Airport protestors the last few days and tonight

Those are just the ones I recall seeing, I'm sure there has been more.

Trump had an executive order for devising a plan to defeat ISIS and I'm waiting for the protests to start for that!

It may be an overly broad statement I made but unfortunately it isn't that ridiculous based on today's political climate

Now that one's pretty funny. How do you think he will defeat ISIS when about half of them are in Iraq and Iraq's parliament passed a bill to reciprocate their being denied entry into the US. It will be pretty hard to defeat ISIS if half of the land they hold is in Iraq and we can't fly over, under or through the country. The Iraquis might do it, but if there are additional troops, advisors and bombing missions needed, maybe not so much. I don't think they're very happy with us right now :).

By the way (and while we're on the subject), how come Saudi Arabia wasn't on the list (I bet I know), especially seeing as 19 of the 21 September 11 hijackers were Saudi.

I guess if you own a few hotels in Saudi Arabia (like Trump) or a few oil wells (like Exxon) it's all okie-dokey.

[John Higgins]

[QUOTE=jdshock;695990]

But all of those things are either 1. general opposition to Trump/Trump's agenda type protests or 2. opposition to specific pieces of legislation that liberals have always been opposed to. It's not like a bunch of liberals were out there protesting Trump's withdrawal from the TPP.

You are correct, most of my liberal friends were celebrating the withdrawal from TPP and I was too!

[shocka khan]

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.

If I thought they were wrong I would fight them. I think I have taken a few more tax classes than you have. If you behave in an ethical manner, you made a mistake and it gets caught, you do the right thing and pay up.

Anything less makes you a leach or a tax-dodger.

[shock]

Now that one's pretty funny. How do you think he will defeat ISIS when about half of them are in Iraq and Iraq's parliament passed a bill to reciprocate their being denied entry into the US. It will be pretty hard to defeat ISIS if half of the land they hold is in Iraq and we can't fly over, under or through the country. The Iraquis might do it, but if there are additional troops, advisors and bombing missions needed, maybe not so much. I don't think they're very happy with us right now :).

By the way (and while we're on the subject), how come Saudi Arabia wasn't on the list (I bet I know), especially seeing as 19 of the 21 September 11 hijackers were Saudi.

I guess if you own a few hotels in Saudi Arabia (like Trump) or a few oil wells (like Exxon) it's all okie-dokey.

And about the list- Trump doesn't have the authority to change the countries on it, all he can do is direct how we deal with the countries. Arguing about Saudi Arabia and Egypt and business ties is a red herring from the left to keep controversy going. Trump was a businessman. So are a few other people in this country. That is why those countries were excluded in the past. It would have meant a loss of oil importation (Pic relevent.) With oil supply suddenly cut off, there would have been a spike in price and demand, throwing the US deeper into depression unless foreign dependance was cut off, something the Obama administration was reluctant (to say the least) to do. The Obama administration was more concerned with keeping American companies from drilling here and now to be bothered with national security. Why do you think Saudi Arabia donated to the Clinton Foundation? SA is not a Republican or Democrat relationship, its a Washington establishment relationship. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Clinton would have been a wet dream for the Saudis because of what it means evviornmentally for the existing relationship.

I'm dangerously close to a climate change arguement; I'd rather save that for when the press gets off this immigration stay and onto Trumps climate change denial.

.

[jdshock]

And about the list- Trump doesn't have the authority to change the countries on it, all he can do is direct how we deal with the countries. Arguing about Saudi Arabia and Egypt and business ties is a red herring from the left to keep controversy going.

This is the argument I was trying to get everyone's favorite rooferee to defend because I think it's an interesting one. What makes you think a president couldn't issue an executive order for a country outside of the pre existing list?

[shock]

This is the argument I was trying to get everyone's favorite rooferee to defend because I think it's an interesting one. What makes you think a president couldn't issue an executive order for a country outside of the pre existing list?

It was an act of Congress that made this "list". But its not so simple. I have no linkable proof, but I would gather that that same act of congress grouped countries into tiers based on their threat to the US. If this assumption were correct, it would mean he signed off an order relating to the vetting of immigrants from countries on the "high risk" tier. Since he didn't make the "list", nor did a past executive order, he is powerless to change status of the countries without effecting all countries on the same teir as SA.

But it would be in the countries best interest if SA were a high risk. Of course, that would mean that a bulk of oil the US imports would dry up, and if done over night, it would throw the US into the worst depression we have seen. Gas prices would sky rocket, there would be massive shortages, and the country would be whipped into a frenzy. Everyone loses. Your arguement trying to bait people in is a bad one. SA should not be on the list, at least until we dont depend on them for 400000 barrels of oil a year.

[jdshock]

It was an act of Congress that made this "list". But its not so simple. I have no linkable proof, but I would gather that that same act of congress grouped countries into tiers based on their threat to the US. If this assumption were correct, it would mean he signed off an order relating to the vetting of immigrants from countries on the "high risk" tier. Since he didn't make the "list", nor did a past executive order, he is powerless to change status of the countries without effecting all countries on the same teir as SA.

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.

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.

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."