Why does Trump not consider that radicalised people, not necessarily Muslim, can come from ANY country? So in the interest of US national security, why didn't he ban ALL immigration?
@dogbert444 - Trump COULD have stopped ALL immigration if he wanted. But in the interest if allowing immigration to continue (he's NOT against people wanting to immigrate to the US), he felt the liklihood of a radicalized individual (ISIS) would enter the country as a refugee. The statements by ALL of our intelligence groups, testifying before Congress a year or so ago stated that refugees absolutely NEED to be vetted to make sure we're not bringing in radical islamists too.The truth is, we can't totally eliminate them - the govt knows that. By taking these steps to drastically reduce the possibility, it shows the govt is doing its due diligence to protect American citizens.Obama just let anyone in from the middle east AND through our southern border, by NOT enforcing our laws. That opened up the possibility of an Orlando shooting, or San Bernardino, and exactly like what happened in Nice, France.
I agree with all this, but it still doesn't address the fact that radicals could come from anywhere.
@dogbert444 Watch this guy, he explains decent reasons behind his muslim ban, to the point where I'm a lot more lax about it now when I was at first, rather upset.www.youtube.com/watch
@dogbert444 - you're correct, radicals could come from any country. BUT the primary countries, infested by ISIS, are the ones he's banned refugees from until we can figure out who's who. On top of that, why not set up refugee camps right there in Syria where we can provide them food, clothing and shelter until the war ends and then these people can go back to their homes in their home country. That's a LOT cheaper than flying them here to become long term welfare recipients!What scares me is how many have already come across our southern border - just waiting foe a chance to blow up a stadium full. ofnpwople, a Rick concert, or some other large gathering of people.Obama did absolutely nothing to enforce our immigration laws. If you do a check, you'll find that US immigration laws are pretty lax anyway, compared to other countries.
Was Nixon justified in firing Archibald Cox?"Trump has US Law behind his decisions." Yates didn't think so, and she was the administration's top lawyer. She was duty bound to follow the law, and she did. By firing Yates for having integrity, Trump has shown that he has none.
@JenSCDC - Nixon and Cox are a different situation entirely. Cox was a "Special prosecutor" assigned to investigate the Watergate incident.With Yates, she violated the law by not following it! Trump, as President has full 150% Constitutional and US law authority backing what he did. Yates took it upon herself to follow her own moral code. If she, in all good conscience, could not follow the law that Trump was enforcing, she should have immediately resigned. You don't get to pick and choose what laws YOU "believe" are wrong and then violate.IF the 9th Circus Court of Appeals actually follows the law, you'll see they're going to overturn that judges decision. If it has to go to the SCOTUS, the same thing "should" be the result. The next order of business would be to impeach & remove any judge that cannot follow US law.
The Immigration and Nationality Act says "no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence."Sure sounds like Trump is the one violating the law.And no, you can't impeach a judge just because you don't like a decision he made. Your eagerness for that shows that you have no respect for the separation of powers. In other words, you're un-American.
@JenSCDC Yes the INA does say that. That's for those people applying for immigration to the US. The President has full US law authority to control which countries, groups, and even types of people are restricted from entering the US based on security reasons. This isn't a ban on Muslims. It's a ban on people from primarily terrorist infested countries. AND it's only temporary. I don't understand why the media insists on putting this situation against Trump as a ban on a specific religious group. They have their heads up their collective asses due to their trying to push a liberal agenda.As for impeachment of Judges... that's exactly the reason for the checks and balances. When Judges make rulings based on their ideals instead of law, they need to be replaced. They may not like what is being done, but they're required to follow the law. None of them were upset when Obama did the exact same thing.
@JenSCDC - per 8 US Code Para 1182: "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or 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."This is US LAW. What part of this did that Federal judge read into, where it says Trump is in violation? In other words, if the President deems some group of people as a problem, he can deny them entry into our national territory.Me - un-American? This exact same law was invoked by Obama (against middle east countries) and no one said a thing. Now, when Trump does it, it's suddenly an issue? Your bias is showing in blazing colors.
Who will be his next scapegoat?
The media, twitter for allowing his "alternative facts" to slip out, he'll blame homosexuals, women and he might even blame his former supporters.
There's no war against Mexicans and Muslims. This is about American citizens. Not one politician has lifted a finger to get Americansome back to work, we got 8 years of welfare scraps under Obama.
@Iraqveteran666 Hitler never started an official war against Jews either. He used them as a reason for why German jobs were failing, unemployment was up and why Germany "wasn't great anymore". Sound familiar? Hitler even built a giant wall around Germany.
So your saying Trump is scapegoating legal immigrants and American of Hispanic ethnicity or of Islamic faith? You not think he's trying to make things better for actual American citizens who have been downtrodden this last 8 years by politicians who will let millions of refugees and ilegals in rather than take care of their own people. 8 years of Obama and all we got was welfare.
@Iraqveteran666 that is exactly what Hitler said.
No he blamed the German Jews in his own country
@Iraqveteran666 and Trump is blaming the Mexican and Muslims in America.
Yeah only the ilegal Mexicans and wants a similar temporary ban on refugees that obama had against Iraq not actual American citizens. You can be of Mexican or middle eastern descent and be an American and for you to say otherwise is racist.
@Iraqveteran666 do Trump supporters have anything new to say? Wouldn't you like to talk again about Hilary's emails or how Trump will make Mexico pay for the wall (by taxing Americans).
Hey wall has to be built. Immigration needs to be controlled, I know you want to exploit cheap ilegal labor for your gardener, Maid, nanny and house maid like we're back in the guilded age while throwing the poor welfare scraps from your elitist liberal banquets but the rest of use to want to return to slave times. Take it Toby Keith *drops microphone*https://youtu.be/ruNrdmjcNTc
@Iraqveteran666 most immigrants come in by plane. A wall doesn't do anything. And the Americans are the ones paying for it: Trump put a %20 import tax on Mexican goods. That means YOU not Mexico will be paying for it. An useless wall that does nothing because only %40 of immigrants come in by foot.
Good that's perfect we will know who the are and have them finger printed making it that much easier to find them when they've over stayed their welcome plus once we catch them and deport the weekend put them on the no fly list and with the wall up they won't get back in again. 20% means less Mexican goods bought because why would I pay 20%if I can get it 10% cheaper elsewhere. 40% I didn't realise it was that high, wow we really gotta close that boarder like at least the ones coming in by plane are known to us. You liberal marshmallows are struggling to come with any reason or excuse to stop it but it's going to happen. If Israel and Saudi Arabia can have secure boarders why not the US, If Liberal France can protect its national industries and jobs why not US.
@Iraqveteran666 the "know who they are" obviously isn't working. This has already been the case for a long time, since before planes most illegal immigrants got here by boats. Not on foot. A wall doesn't work. You're the one paying for it and smiling like it will do something.
You said it 40% that's a lot. And boat well we will just have to do something about that just like Australia does. Your policy of doing nothing is no good.
@Iraqveteran666 you've reported my comments so I'm done talking to you.
Reported to who lol and reported what?
Reporting someone you're losing an argument with is pretty low.
Why would I report. I say things worse than you do and this site is PC liberal biased lol. How many times have we crossed swords in the past without me or anyone reporting you?
@Iraqveteran666 my comments in other sections where I've debated with you have been mysteriously reported too. Somebody is doing it, probably you.
It ain't me Im not a liberal at berkley rioting over free speech
Then who would report it?
Somebody who doesn’t like you or an mod
@John_Doesntdid you just say Hitler built a wall around Germany?The Berlin wall went up in 1961 and that was when East Germany was a soviet puppet state, it went up because of Nikita Khrushchev, not Hitler.
@disgustingweebtrash it was to keep people who wanted to escape the ravages of state socialism
Actually, someone might disagree with that position. And that person is Sen. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3yDjylQ5Ps
@VirginiaBeachBum Its a natural consequence of disobeying your boss and even Sen Jeff Sessions would say that if you say no the consequences of saying no are likely that you would be fired. In fact, its implied in his speech because if there wasn't risk of adverse consequences then people would just run around doing whatever they want. As happens many times in different administrations people are often fired or resign as a result of views that differ from their bosses. I would argue that she made a mistake be saying no and that since her departure was of little consequence she made a tactical error. She should have played for time and come out with public resignation stating a legal position which outlines her concerns and stating that she has no choice but to resign as a matter of conscience. If you are going to play the game, play it to full effect.
Well, silly me for listening to what Sessions actually said instead of putting words in his mouth. I never said Trump wasn't within his rights to fire Yates. There just seems to be a double standard going on here where Sessions tells a nominee, THIS nominee, they have an obligation to say no to the president (he didn't mention resigning) when they feel the president oversteps their bounds, then when she does so, Trump fires off one of the most mean spirited firing statements I've ever seen out of a president. Betrayed the DOJ, really? Far too often with him, it's not what he does, but how he does it, like not even briefing CBP before the issuance of the order. He's too damn thin-skinned about criticism and needs to chill out and act like presidential. This isn't a reality TV show.
@VirginiaBeachBum Don't be silly, Sessions never once said an AG shouldn't be fired for disobeying a boss. He said that an AG should be willing to say no. She obviously met that expectation so should he ever feel the need to ask her in the future he already knows the answer.
"Sessions never once said an AG shouldn't be fired for disobeying a boss. He said that an AG should be willing to say no."If you go back and re-read my last reply, you'll see that's exactly what I said.
@VirginiaBeachBum Yeah, i see what you are saying, but it seems a little contradictory when you say there seems to be a double standard, but perhaps i am misunderstanding what you are communicating. To me it seems pretty clear that an AG should "say no" under certain circumstances, and also even when it goes beyond a matter of law if the person cannot follow direction given that conflicts with personal interest that they cannot overcome. Sessions question seems very reasonable to me and not at all contradictory to what has happened.
This video existed long before Sessions' nomination. Sessions took what I believe was a reasonable stand on the matter. But when Yates does what Sessions said she should do, instead of simply firing her (which was going to happen anyway, let's face facts) Trump goes off on some tirade about betrayal and being weak on security and borders. She was a career DOJ employee before her appointment as Deputy AG. She prosecuted Eric Rudolph. The firing was enough. The comments in his letter were just the same childish Trump drama and overkill we've all grown to know over the past 30 years. Where is Trump's outrage at Sessions for previously telling her she should do what she did? We'll see how this matter plays out in his confirmation vote.
@VirginiaBeachBum She's interim AG for the most powerful nation in the world and a political appointee and unfortunately for her she ended up working for Trump. Another poorly played missed opportunity for the dems.This will be played out in the courts and Trump's EO will be upheld in the majority of it's components.
She did her job to the best of her ability by respecting the law. Trump firing her is at the same level of disrespect for the law as was Nixon's firing of Archibald Cox.
No, it's not. If the reports are accurate, and we can't say for sure exactly what wasn't said or is not known, she has opened herself up to possible investigation by the aba. It is known that Trump consulted with constitutional and immigration lawyers from the AG office and they advised favorably on at least some elements of the EO. When she gave the order not to defend she did not cite law or legal precedent, she gave a personal opinion of what is "right and just". It's not her job to determine righteousness or justness it is her job to determine legality. Further, conduct of a lawyer requires that when given an order a lawyer must comply OR consult with their superior on why they cannot. It is not apparent that she did this, thus the discussion she may be investigated. Since she countermanded after her own lawyers gave consult she was in forfeiture of her responsibility.
Had she done as I stated, not only would she have gained more attention she would clearly have been in line with rules of conduct.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Exactly! Scum like Antifa who claim to be "anti-fascist" don't even realise they're the fascists themselves...
@JCT666 They think because they're from the Left that they can't be fascist. Just like they think because Hitler was a fascist he couldn't be a Socialist.That just shows you the ignorance from these people. There's nothing more fascist than violently attacking someone because they have a different opinion. You become a fascist when you try to stop other people from expressing themselves. That's Antifa for you. Winston Churchill already said it: "The fascist of the future will call themselves anti-fascists." He was spot on lol
Do you know what the chances are that an American will get killed by a Muslim or refugee?
Depends on their level of contact with them. Obama has a similar ban I don't see the problem. You only have to look at Europe
I had bosses who let the employees question him/her. A good boss is thick skinned.
Umm, most good bosses aren't dictators.
I agree asker
I should have said, go question your boss and disobeying them.
If he were, then why is it that everything that he's done has hurt us? And please, don't be an idiot and try to claim that he's protected us from terrorists. And even if he has reduced the risk from being killed by a terrorist, that risk was so low in first place that it's merely noise in any analysis of cause of death.
What do you mean who? Muslim people obviously, I'm not provide Islam or anything and I see this as a stupid ban.
All muslim people are just those in certain countries with on going Jihad so?