quote:

riginally posted by oldbill123:
I cannot understand why anyone who escaped these countries would voluntarily go back. Most likely are spying at some level. And I agree, ban Saudi's too


Certainly you visit your parents or other family from time to time, no?

No. Immigrants in the past took a long dangerous journey to get here and become Americans. They just could not drive/walk/ fly home. Today's hyphenated americans are just living here and do not wish to fully assimilate. It is maturity to put the good of the country above yourself, friend, extended family. I NEVER thought I would see it again in my lifetime. No American should want to return to the mideast sh1thole for any reason vouluntarily

quote:

Originally posted by WaterburyBob:

quote:

"everyone has a right to come to this country"

Really? Show me where that's written, commie bastard....

Silly Bob, it's clearly stated in the liberal constitution, written by a fellow named Marx.

Not only do they have a right to come to this country, they have a right to make you pay their living expenses.

quote:

Originally posted by olfuzzy:
Oh no, tell me it isn't so

Iran will retaliate against Trump's immigration ban by 'limiting visas to American tourists' - as other world leaders unite in anger over U.S. president's executive order


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...immigration-ban.html

I lived in Iran from 1969 to 1971, while the Shah was still in power. Life there was quite tolerable, I will say. Natives were being taught English in school as an official second language, Americans and other Westerners were fairly well accepted and had enclaves where their lifestyle was practiced--there was even a Drive-In movie, and the sound could be switched between English and Farsi. There were parts of town where outsiders (non-Muslims) were not well tolerated and we were not recommended to travel through those areas (there are parts of American cities where it is not a good idea, either), but life in general was OK. All that changed in 1979 when the Shah was deposed and the Ayatollahs took over the country. When I left in 1971 I actually had plans to go back about 10 years later to see how much progress into the 20th Century had been made; that plan was scrapped when the country slipped back 700 years in 1979 and became unsafe for any Westerner, particularly any American.

I don't think there is any good reason why an American would travel to Iran these days. There are a few things worth seeing there, but it's just too dangerous now. I think our State Department should have a complete ban on travel to Iran in place. We don't have any Embassy there, so we don't even have US representatives in place. (We saw how Embassy personnel were treated in 1979, didn't we?)

So let Iran deny entry to US personnel--we shouldn't be going there, anyway. And any who foolishly do go we should just let the idiots rot in jail there--anyone that stupid should not be wanted back.

flashguy

This message has been edited. Last edited by: flashguy,

Just wanna give y'all a Saturday chuckle. I hadn't seen this one...

quote:

Was there not a state department employee some while ago that finally got caught for essentially selling visas?

Yep... add to that the expertise these terrorist organizations have at counterfeiting visas , not to mention the fact that the physical visa making equipment physical visa making equipment in parts of Syria and Iraq fell under ISIS control. Given these facts it only makes sense to require additional scrutiny of those trying to enter or reenter the U.S.

Saturday is a work day for President Trump.

Trump sets 5-year and lifetime lobbying ban for officials

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump acted Saturday to fulfill a key portion of his pledge to "drain the swamp" in Washington, banning administration officials from ever lobbying the U.S. on behalf of a foreign government and imposing a separate five-year ban on other lobbying.

Trump has said individuals who want to aid him in his quest to "Make America Great Again" should focus on the jobs they will be doing to help the American people, not thinking ahead to the future income they could rake in by peddling their influence after serving in government.

"Most of the people standing behind me will not be able to go to work," Trump joked, referring to an array of White House officials who lined up behind him as he sat at his Oval Office desk. The officials included Vice President Mike Pence, chief of staff Reince Priebus, senior strategist Steve Bannon and counselor Kellyanne Conway. "So you have one last chance to get out."

Trump said he talked about the ban a lot during the campaign and "we're now putting it into effect."

In a pair of separate actions, Trump took steps to begin restructuring the White House National Security Council and the Homeland Security Council. He also gave Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the president's top military advisers, 30 days to come up with a plan defeat the Islamic State group. Scores of people have been killed in terrorist acts that IS has carried out overseas or has inspired on U.S. soil.

Under an executive order that Trump signed in the presence of the news media, every political appointee joining the executive branch on or after Jan. 20 — the day Trump took office — must agree to the lobbying bans. That includes avoiding, for five years after leaving, lobbying the agency they worked for.

Another provision sets a two-year period during which appointees must avoid working on issues involving former employers or clients.

Trump is allowed to waive any of the restrictions.

Questions had been raised about how the bans would be enforced. The order says they are "solely enforceable" by the U.S. government "by any legally available means," including debarment proceeding within any affected executive branch agency, or civil court proceedings.

Former appointees who are found to have violated the ban may also be barred from lobbying their former agency for up to five years, on top of the five-year period covered by the pledge, the executive order states.

Trump said the order supersedes one that President Barack Obama signed on Jan. 21, 2009, that banned anyone from lobbying the government for a period of two years after leaving. Trump said Obama's order was "full of loopholes."

The president signed the order and a pair of presidential memoranda near the end of an intense day of telephone diplomacy during which he discussed a range of issues with the leaders of Japan, Germany, Russia, France and Australia. All are leaders Trump needs to build relationships with.

Trump had released the plan for a lobbying ban a few weeks before the November election, one of several promised policies aimed at curbing corruption and the influence of lobbyists in Washington. Trump also made promises about transparency and ethics.

Some have argued that the ban could make it difficult for Trump to fill thousands of jobs throughout the administration by causing some candidates to become squeamish about limiting their ability to make money after they leave government employment.

Others say the prohibitions on lobbying are too insignificant to be effective.

AND:

On Saturday, president Trump signed three more executive orders aimed at fighting terrorism and corruption. They follow yesterday's order for a temporarily ban on immigrants from certain countries entering the U.S. Today's actions are as follows:

EO #1: Implementing a five year lobbying ban on administration officials. "This is something I've talked about a lot on the campaign trail... and now we're putting it into effect," said Trump.
EO #2: Calling for a reorganization of the National Security Council and the Homeland Security Council.
EO #3: Calling on military leaders to present a report to the president in 30 days that outlines a strategy for defeating ISIS. "This is the plan to defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, in other words ISIS. I think it's going to be very successful."

Accoding to Reuters, Trump's call for a military plan to defeat Islamic State is likely to see the Pentagon revisiting options for a more aggressive use of firepower and American troops. But U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, doubt the country's military will advocate fundamentally changing a key strategy refined during the Obama administration: relying on local forces to do most of the fighting, and dying, in Syria and Iraq.

"It is going to be very successful," Trump said as he signed the order in the Oval Office at the White House. A copy of the order was not immediately available but was expected to be released later. In a briefing with reporters on Saturday, a senior administration official said the order would ask the joint chiefs of staff to submit a plan in 30 days for defeating Islamic State, fulfilling one of Trump's campaign trail pledges.

Trump made defeating Islamic State - which has claimed responsibility for several attacks on American soil and is frustrating U.S. military operations across the Middle East - one of the key themes in his campaign. But he avoided talking about specifics of any plan to combat the radical group.

Any shifts by the U.S. military would have broad repercussions for U.S. relationships across the Middle East, which were strained by former President Barack Obama's effort throughout his administration to limit U.S. military involvement in Iraq and Syria. Trump's Defense Secretary James Mattis has advocated a more forceful approach against Islamic State, but how he will pursue that remains unclear.

David Barno, a retired lieutenant general who once led U.S. forces in Afghanistan, said it would be a major escalation if Trump's administration opted to rely on U.S. troops by putting them into a direct combat role and effectively substitute them for local forces.

"We've been down that road, and I don't think the American people are excited about that idea," said Barno, who now teaches at American University in Washington, D.C. "I do think the Pentagon will argue for, and get a lot more authority, to put advisers and special operators closer into the fight," Barno said.

Looks like more war is coming.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...ore-executive-orders

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:
Just wanna give y'all a Saturday chuckle. I hadn't seen this one...
...

Wait! We been gypped. I thought it was supposed to be bad lip reading....

Trump loosing a local TV station poll on blocking refugees. Feel free to help out if so minded! This station is in Nashville TN (Davidson County) One of only 3 Tennessee counties that went Democratic in the election.

President Donald Trump has barred all refugees from entering the United States for four months and indefinitely halted any from Syria, saying the ban is needed to keep out “radical Islamic terrorists.” Do you agree with this order?

http://wkrn.com/2017/01/28/pol...rder-on-immigration/

So a judge in NY can keep him from upholding the law? What the...

He overstepped. Trying to ban people already granted permanent residency status, and other legally adjudicated immigration status without due process was a dumb move

The order doesn't apply to new immigrants


So, Yes, she can

quote:

Originally posted by Ackks:
So a judge in NY can keep him from upholding the law? What the...

How did he overstep? That's a bunch of horse...

I edited my post, so wont restate, but it was already discussed in part earlier in this thread

I don't know who told him he could ban permanent residents but if the stay is taken up by the Supreme Court I'd be stunned if they didn't agree. Even if Scalia was still alive

Edit: this article from the National Review discusses it

http://www.nationalreview.com/...vers-green-cards-why

quote:

Originally posted by Ackks:
How did he overstep? That's a bunch of horse...

quote:

Originally posted by cparktd:
Trump loosing a local TV station poll on blocking refugees. Feel free to help out if so minded! This station is in Nashville TN (Davidson County) One of only 3 Tennessee counties that went Democratic in the election.

President Donald Trump has barred all refugees from entering the United States for four months and indefinitely halted any from Syria, saying the ban is needed to keep out “radical Islamic terrorists.” Do you agree with this order?

http://wkrn.com/2017/01/28/pol...rder-on-immigration/

Went there.

Voted "YES".

Current score: 1,907 (57.03%) NO to 1,437 (42.97%) YES. Common sense appears to be losing in Davidson County, Tennessee.

snip*
an official with the Department of Homeland Security said Saturday night that no green-card holders from the seven countries cited in Trump’s order had been prevented from entering the U.S.

It appears the issue was with people in transit or in the process...

snip*
Some foreign nationals who were allowed to board flights before the order was signed Friday had been detained at U.S. airports, told they were no longer welcome. The DHS official who briefed reporters by phone said 109 people who were in transit on airplanes had been denied entry and 173 had not been allowed to get on their planes overseas.

So sounds like a big deal over nothing... yet again.

http://wkrn.com/2017/01/28/fed...ered-by-trump-order/



TD

Yea, the ACLU went on twitter and made it sound like they had defeated Satan single handedly.

In reality the judge's order in New York applies to basically 200 people

quote:

Originally posted by cparktd:
snip*
an official with the Department of Homeland Security said Saturday night that no green-card holders from the seven countries cited in Trump’s order had been prevented from entering the U.S.

It appears the issue was with people in transit or in the process...

snip*
Some foreign nationals who were allowed to board flights before the order was signed Friday had been detained at U.S. airports, told they were no longer welcome. The DHS official who briefed reporters by phone said 109 people who were in transit on airplanes had been denied entry and 173 had not been allowed to get on their planes overseas.

So sounds like a big deal over nothing... yet again.

http://wkrn.com/2017/01/28/fed...ered-by-trump-order/



TD

quote:

Went there.

Voted "YES".

Current score: 1,907 (57.03%) NO to 1,437 (42.97%) YES. Common sense appears to be losing in Davidson County, Tennessee.

Thanks!


Little more help please... LOL
http://wkrn.com/2017/01/28/pol...rder-on-immigration/

quote:

Originally posted by Kevbo:
Yea, the ACLU went on twitter and made it sound like they had defeated Satan single handedly.

In reality the judge's order in New York applies to basically 200 people

quote:

Originally posted by cparktd:
snip*
an official with the Department of Homeland Security said Saturday night that no green-card holders from the seven countries cited in Trump’s order had been prevented from entering the U.S.

It appears the issue was with people in transit or in the process...

snip*
Some foreign nationals who were allowed to board flights before the order was signed Friday had been detained at U.S. airports, told they were no longer welcome. The DHS official who briefed reporters by phone said 109 people who were in transit on airplanes had been denied entry and 173 had not been allowed to get on their planes overseas.

So sounds like a big deal over nothing... yet again.

http://wkrn.com/2017/01/28/fed...ered-by-trump-order/



TD

You left out the “I hope Trump enjoys losing. He’s going to lose so much we’re going to get sick and tired of his losing"
https://www.yahoo.com/news/acl...osing-024846291.html

Calm blue ocean...

link to White House site where executive orders are published:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/bri...presidential-actions

Is it more humane for the U.S. to accept immigrants or for those potential immigrants to remain in their country of origin?

Consider that generically immigrants are better off than those left behind. They have ambition and resources, often with a higher education.

Immigration therefore drains the country of origin of those best positioned to bring about change in their country to improve the quality of life for their fellow countrymen. Do we really help humanity by allowing immigration?

Immigration can make life better for an individual, but not society at large.