2nd travel ban blocked - ole Donny can't catch a break

[SamSpade]

Which countries would those be??

And here is the problem...

It's been stated countless times, that the PURPOSE of the ban is not to halt all persons entering from these nations indefinitely, but to temporarily halt persons until a better vetting process can be established --
and the principal nations are either nations hostile to the U.S. who have little to no agreement with providing information to us or screening people and so forth to nations with little to no working government at all - so that they actually CANNOT help us out on their end.

How many Saudi terrorists *SINCE* 9/11? Not a lot.

Remember, the purpose is to establish a vetting process, not -- revenge, I guess. I don't know what these people are thinking. You don't need one for nations where you already have a process you use.
You do need one when you don't have one you use.

They're trying to get sixty days - and we still get "unconstitutional! against Muslims!". As if the whole world has some innate right to enter our country without any documentation from their nation of origin.

 

[Midnightrider]

Which countries would those be??

make a list of terrorist attacks committed by foreigners on US soil :thumbsup:

 

[Restitution]

Bacon, MR, TJ, boy........ all of them defend to the end..... as long as it is from behind the screen.

Still waiting to see any of you post up some Muslim immigrant foster papers! When will any of you be sponsoring these people in YOUR place of residence? (or at least setting up another bunk in mommy's basement)

 

[Gilligan]

Bacon, MR, TJ, boy........ all of them defend to the end..... as long as it is from behind the screen.

As I noted in another thread, I've never seen any two of them in the room at the same time. Makes you wonder.

 

[itsbob]

And here is the problem...

It's been stated countless times, that the PURPOSE of the ban is not to halt all persons entering from these nations indefinitely, but to temporarily halt persons until a better vetting process can be established --
and the principal nations are either nations hostile to the U.S. who have little to no agreement with providing information to us or screening people and so forth to nations with little to no working government at all - so that they actually CANNOT help us out on their end.

How many Saudi terrorists *SINCE* 9/11? Not a lot.

Remember, the purpose is to establish a vetting process, not -- revenge, I guess. I don't know what these people are thinking. You don't need one for nations where you already have a process you use.
You do need one when you don't have one you use.

They're trying to get sixty days - and we still get "unconstitutional! against Muslims!". As if the whole world has some innate right to enter our country without any documentation from their nation of origin.

Exactly, and they keep using the term BAN, yet nobody is being banned..

 

[PsyOps]

make a list of terrorist attacks committed by foreigners on US soil :thumbsup:

How far back do you want to go?

1993 WTC bombing
1997 Empire State Building Shooting
2001 911 attack
2001 shoe bombing
2002 Los Angeles Airport shooting
2006 Seattle Jewish Federation shooting
2013 Boston Marathon bombing
2015 San Bernardino shooting
2016 Ohio State University car attack

:shrug:

 

[Midnightrider]

How far back do you want to go?

1993 WTC bombing
1997 Empire State Building Shooting
2001 911 attack
2001 shoe bombing
2002 Los Angeles Airport shooting
2006 Seattle Jewish Federation shooting
2013 Boston Marathon bombing
2015 San Bernardino shooting
2016 Ohio State University car attack

:shrug:

which countries were those people from? (that's the context)



and would this ban have stopped any of them?

 

[PsyOps]

which countries were those people from? (that's the context)



and would this ban have stopped any of them?

Look it up.

 

[Midnightrider]

Look it up.

I already know. that was my point

context and all......

 

[PsyOps]

I already know. that was my point

context and all......

Context what? You asked if there were any terrorist attacks by "foreigners on US soil". Everything on the list I provided were committed by foreigners on US soil.

I'll help you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States

 

[SamSpade]

which countries were those people from? (that's the context)



and would this ban have stopped any of them?

How is this a "ban"? Remind us how long it's supposed to last.

It's been explained many times - this is not the halt the flow of terrorists worldwide - this is to pause and improve our vetting process from states without a working government and with whom we have no relationship for screening people.
It's one thing if a guy comes to us as a refugee from, say, Turkey - and the Turkish government helps us with everything we need to know about them. So even though it's a Muslim nation - we don't need to restrict travel.
It's quite another when it's a nation like, say - Somalia - which has no functioning government at all.

Lastly - what's your intel source saying these nation's people do not pose a threat? Kind of want to know BEFORE it happens. Isn't that the way it is supposed to work?
Because other than - hey they haven't killed us *YET*, which is a stupid way to sift out a threat - you're not telling us much.

 

[Midnightrider]

if your argument is that you are banning people from these countries because of terrorists are being imported from these countries it would help if there were actually terrorists coming here from those countries. Instead we give a pass to the countries that have an actual history of sending us terrorists.

Which countries would those be??

context.....

Context what? You asked if there were any terrorist attacks by "foreigners on US soil". Everything on the list I provided were committed by foreigners on US soil.

I'll help you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States

the only help I need from you is for you to read with a little more attention to context

 

[This_person]

which countries were those people from? (that's the context)



and would this ban have stopped any of them?

I think the context would be, "Why were the countries chosen?"

You claim that they were chosen because they are majority-Muslim states, but that is laughable at the outset because there are many more majority-Muslim states that are not a part of the travel restriction, and the EO says nothing of religion therefore restricts the movements into the United States of anyone from any religion into this country from those countries.

So, now that we know your point of view is laughable, let's look at the reason the countries were chosen: The Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act (2015) was part of an omnibus spending bill. The legislation restricted access to the Visa Waiver Program, which allows citizens from 38 countries who are visiting the United States for less than 90 days to enter without a visa. Foreigners who would normally be deemed eligible for a visa waiver were denied if they had visited Iran, Syria, Sudan or Iraq in the past five years or held dual citizenship from one of those countries. In February 2016, the Obama administration added Libya, Somali and Yemen to the list of countries one could not have visited — but allowed dual citizens of those countries who had not traveled there access to the Visa Waiver Program. Dual citizens of Syria, Sudan, Iraq and Iran are still ineligible.

This means that the reason for the travel restriction's choice of countries is based on (hold your breath, now, you'll be shocked) law established and regulation expanded under the Obama administration based on intelligence at the time, and continues to be (or has been added to) as current intelligence.

We don't stop Germans from coming here even though Operation Pastorius actually landed submarines and explosives in the United States on orders of the German government. We have a different relationship with Germany now.

So, if you're looking for context, let's look at the context of why the states were chosen.

 

[Hijinx]

http://www.hannity.com/articles/han...udge-who-ruled-against-trump-travel-15653497/

According to this the Judge and Obama were classmates at Harvard.
As Obama made a trip to Hawaii on Monday.

Be interesting to know if they met.

 

[PsyOps]

context.....


the only help I need from you is for you to read with a little more attention to context

So, you can just throw that word around just to keep people guessing what the heck you're talking about. I gave you a list of terrorist attack where the perps were foreigners. It was specific to your question.

 

[Gilligan]

context.....


the only help I need from you is for you to read with a little more attention to context

The terrorist organizations like ISIS implicitly stating that they fully intended to use those refugee paths to infiltrate the US...that does not matter, right?

What "context" actually looks like, mo..

 

[Midnightrider]

So, you can just throw that word around just to keep people guessing what the heck you're talking about. I gave you a list of terrorist attack where the perps were foreigners. It was specific to your question.

Bob and I were having a conversation and you jumped in the middle of it. If you go back and read our conversation you might understand the context. Although I am beginning to doubt your ability....

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Words have consequences. Had he shut his damn mouth throughout the campaign, maybe this wouldn't have happened.

 

[This_person]

Words have consequences. Had he shut his damn mouth throughout the campaign, maybe this wouldn't have happened.

Not really. Obama said that the mandate fine was not a tax, it was a fine. Argued it over and over and over again....then SCOTUS said, "nah, it's a tax, and even though it didn't originate in the House like taxes have to, it's all good."

SCOTUS doesn't care what YOU think it is, or what the people who signed it SAY it is, just what they want it to be.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Not really. Obama said that the mandate fine was not a tax, it was a fine. Argued it over and over and over again....then SCOTUS said, "nah, it's a tax, and even though it didn't originate in the House like taxes have to, it's all good."

SCOTUS doesn't care what YOU think it is, or what the people who signed it SAY it is, just what they want it to be.

Establishment Clause lawsuits consider intent. Tax cases do not. It was argued in court as a tax, regardless of what was said and SCOTUS ruled it constitutional.


The immigration law this falls under specifically states the president can't discriminate against religion (among other things). Throughtout the campaing, his told everyone what his intent was. All the time.

It's literally still on his web page:

Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-...mp-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration

It's not too hard to prove intent when the exact intent comes from the guy who wrote the thing.

Just an example of his lack of political skills and "telling it like it is" coming back to bite him in the ass.