Trump Signs Order to Restrict Refugees from 7 Countries But Not Saudi Arabia

What the heck does the left over-reacting have anything to do with this? Yeah, that's exactly what the left wants to do- encourage more terrorist attacks. Unreal.

 

Irani's are smart AF and contribute a LOT to our country. What a joke to include them and exclude the leading terror country in the world - Saudi.

 

I think the exact opposite. The reaction, or over-reaction, whatever it is, to this ban from Trump shows the world, the Muslim world that American citizens are supporting them. That help defeat messages that American is against Muslim. ISIL and those group wouldn't want to show this part of America, but would want to use Trump's word and his actions to indoctrinate hatred within those young minds prone to propaganda.

I think Bush Jr and Obama is well aware of this and thus have been so careful about their words concerning Islamic terrorism and Islam. This understanding is probably also why many at the State Dept was devastated to hear of this ban and has already compiled a draft of the State Dept dissent channel memo.

 

We can vet Saudis. Cant vet Iranians. This is homelands position since 2015. Again, Obama picked these countries.......

 

How many of these non-vetted Irani folks in your words essentially have committed terroristic attacks on American soil since 9/11?

 

Why do people keep bringing up that Obama picked the countries ?? Obama didn't sign this executive order. That argument would be like a thief that stole a car saying , " yeah I stole it , but my buddy picked this one for me to steal."

 

None. that doesn't change the fact that homeland says we need stricter vetting processes for Iran to which Obama and Trump both agreed. You want me to trust your opinion on national security over Homeland why? because you are in the know?

Because you dipshits keep claiming Trump picked these countries for business reasons. Or that he got it wrong. Clearly he didn't pick the countries. Homeland did under Obama....

Where were you when Obama blocked visas from anyone who had visited these exact same countries? were you claiming he picked them for business reasons? Was his decision a Muslim visa ban? Was Obama doing it out of hate?

 

Can we vet the Chinese or Russians any better than Iranians?

I suspect in the next two years we will see war and a Syriafication in Iran. It benefits the allied Gulf States and Israel. Russia potentially gains a vassal state.

 

Homeland seems to think so. How would you or i know? I guess you could argue intelligence gets it wrong often (which they do) and you have very compelling Facebook charts and memes to prove it.....

 

Hey dipshit. Answer this question.. how many immigrants from these countries have committed terrorism? Obama picked these countries. Great, we have that out of the way..

Sessions and Bannon took it another level that is unwarranted. I will no longer say Trump did this or that. We know he ain't running crap.

 

You can ban and expel every brown person and you would not end random mass shootings. You could ban guns and you would not end random mass killings.
This policy is based on purely on xenophobia, and the countries selected have no ability to retaliate through foreign policy. There is nothing inappropriate about careful issuance of visas, but to just block visa access, holders, green card holders, and dual nationals access is incompetent and wrong.

If we banned Saudi nationals, we would be thrown off as the reserve currency. If we banned Egyptians, we would lose the tentative peace we've been buying for almost 40 years. We banned Iranians, but its the only Middle Eastern country without direct and approved US influence.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks

Again ive already answered your questions above. go yell at homeland if you think they are marking the wrong countries. Its not about just where jihadis live its about what countries we can vet. You really have no information on either of these.

Was Obama's ban on visas for anyone who had visited these countries warranted? if so, why? Do you consider it a Muslim Visa ban?

 

Are you arguing for open borders? Sounds to me like you are saying 'if you cant stop them all, then dont try to stop any'.

When Obama banned visas from anyone who had visited these countries was it xenophobia? When Obama blocked all refugees from IRaq for 6 months, was it xenophobia? When the US blocked all immigration from Japan and Germany during WW2 was it xenophobia?

 

It will be interesting to see how long the anti-Trump sentiment lasts before it all just fades.

I don't know that this level of hatred will continue until the mid-term or the general election in 45-46 months.

What I do know is that the hard core Trump supporters will keep their fire lit, they have waited a long time and it isn't just an election for them, it is a culture and a way of life.

 

Getting a visa to work in the US is a huge pain in the ass, based on what my Syrian and Iranian coworkers (professionals on J1) experiences. I went to college and studied with refugees who echo the same sentiments. I've read it takes over 1.5-2 years to get processed for refugee status, and it was even longer for Syrian refugees.
Opposing a blanket and retroactive ban does not mean open borders. Trump asked Guillani for a legal means to ban Muslims and it's time we start taking Trump literally and seriously.

No, Obama acted on credible intelligence. If Trump blocked had only blocked Syrians, there would still be an uproar but much less than what you see right now.
Blocking Japan and Germany visas during the war would be acceptable because there is an active declaration of war between two governments. But was it right to block the refugees from WWII, notable Jewish refugees (http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2017/01/30/1939-refugees-st-louis-manifest), absolutely not. As far as I know, despite our troop presence we are not at war with any country/government right now.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ilar-to-obama-in-2011/?utm_term=.6ec7a0d401f2

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ump-refugee-policy-comparison-obama/97247418/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...mparing-trumps-and-obamas-immigration-restri/

https://mic.com/articles/167077/did...tatements-about-obama-and-refugees#.53Nu57pdt

And in case you try to flip over to a "Obama did it to Cubans" lie:
http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...-immigration-ban-comparable-obamas-cuba-rule/

 

I doubt it will last. Trump voters and to an extent Republicans do not give a rat's ass about Trump's policies if Drudge tells them it's OK. If Drudge turns on Trump, then Trump is done.

 

Unfortunately, I doubt republicans will break from Trump. After all, what did he campaign on... cutting republican taxes, keeping Muslims and Mexican people out of the country. These are all things he is focusing on. Republicans will love him.

 

Don't underestimate the 15-25% of the population that support Trump for reasons other than him having an "R" next to his name. They support his trade views, his immigration views and his views on race and sex. These followers have been looking for someone that supports there widely marginalized opinions and now that they have grabbed the brass ring, they are not going to easily let it go.

Those supporters are not enough to get him re-elected, but they will do everything possible to build support and keep him relevant enough to get another 25-30% of the other 75%-85% of the voting public.

This is an ideological battle for these people, and they are not going to compromise..... underestimate them or their appeal, and you will get knocked on your butt.

 

I truly believe in the end they all (Trump voters and republicans in general) will fall in line behind Trump until AFTER the 2020 election, then it'll be Bush Jr all over again for them.

Only Kaisch had the gumption to say no Trump. Even Romney kissed the ring.

Spoiler