It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Exclusive: Trump Expected to Order Temporary Ban on Refugees

page: 3
65
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

In regards to the EXCLUSIVE... it is probably a test... to the media.. to see if their "exclusive" info matches the facts of what may be signed tomorrow...

I can wait to see what the President signs...

4Dchess at play?



edit on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 23:53:58 -0600 by JacKatMtn because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 11:56 PM
link   
While I agree with this, the thing that troubles me is the next group that attacks the US will not be entering as refugee's.

They'll be bought in on special planes having been trained in Oman, Kuwait or Saudi.

They'll need no visa's, they'll go through no immigration.

Do you not understand the people that orchestrate the major world events, ie Iraq War, ISIS, Libya are above the government and police.



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Agit8dChop

That is an interesting point, worth to get some research on it, and get a thread too.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 12:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
While I agree with this, the thing that troubles me is the next group that attacks the US will not be entering as refugee's.

They'll be bought in on special planes having been trained in Oman, Kuwait or Saudi.

They'll need no visa's, they'll go through no immigration.

Do you not understand the people that orchestrate the major world events, ie Iraq War, ISIS, Libya are above the government and police.

Might explain the Chinese visiting the region with Naval vessels since 2010...

Globalist move... we knew they wouldn't go down without a fight......



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 12:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: Snarl

Someone, somewhere has just read your post, got triggered and has now got another reason to be offended, another means of labeling Trump a racist.

This someone, of course, is living in a river in Egypt, also known as Denial and will likely react to this latest outrage with textbook labeling of Trump as a racist bigot......as if this is the first they are hearing of this.

This someone will also call him a deluded Christian fundie because he has exempted religious minorities who are being persecuted by Islamic regimes, which is the height of this someones hypocrisy insofar that all the core values this someone holds dear are the exact same values the Islamic regimes are hell bent on destroying and murdering anyone who even remotely displays a desire for freedom from Islam.



Hit the nail on the head. And here I was thinking this someone (someones really) resided in ATS..



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 12:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: JacKatMtn
a reply to: Snarl
4D chess at play?

I'm nowhere near as smart as the body of folks Trump has assembled to lead the nation forward. Looks like they've doled out enough rope to the press to hang themselves with it. Hopefully, we've come to the end of the barrage of lies. Some of 'em are still showing their asses in public, but it's only a few now, and the ones doing it are the expectation.

I expect they'll be left at the curb (as opposed to kicked) like Mitt Romney.

Sorry if you don't get the Game of Thrones reference. Worth it!!



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 02:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

How many terrorist attacks on US soil in the last eight years wouldn't have occurred if these bans were in place?

The Orlando shooter was US-born, the male terrorist in the San Bernardino shootings was American born (his wife was born in Pakistan and raised in Saudi Arabia — neither of which is on the list) and the Boston Marathon bombers had immigrated from Dagestan or Kyrgyzstan I believe (though ethnically, Chechen).

The Cascade Mall shooter was born in Turkey but immigrated to the US as a young child when his mother married an American. The NY/NJ Bomber is from Afghanistan and immigrated to the US with his family when he was like 11-12 (2000 I believe)?

So none of them?

Let's get real here folks. What's the point of this ban? Until we can make vetting foolproof? It'll never be fullproof. After all, how does one vet young children? What process could determine if 15 or 20 years down the road, a child will "self-radicalize" on the Internet?

What's to stop a jihadi from masquerading as a Christian (or any other religion)? If ISIS, Al Qaeda, whatever terrorists organization wants to direct attacks with trained/supported operatives, why wouldn't they just send them from a country not on the list?

It doesn't seem like this will have any real effect except to foster feelings of alienation among demographics that are at greatest risk for radicalization (young men)?



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 02:40 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

It does not matter that we hurt feelings you come here the right way or you do not come at all. This is not some game where we let the cartels spread their magic and the terrorists/ criminals have their way with us.

This country is already gonna be crowded with low iq liberal spawn from every color of the rainbow. Nothing wrong with sorting Americas sheet out first before you loosen up a bit again.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 03:34 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian




Let's get real here folks. What's the point of this ban?


Others in this thread have already bought it up, Americans will be on that list soon enough...

People are turning on each other, the proof is right in front of us with the current liberal meltdown. It will not take much for "the people" to demand their own brethren be hung out to dry in the name of security, nor does it take much for the list to be modified.

As you point out homegrown terrorists are far more of a threat than ones from overseas...



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 05:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Trump's working fast, while the media and their parrots salivate for him to say something they approve of. "Please talk like us Donald! Please say things we want to hear!"


This is exactly right. The arrogance of the media is incredible to see. They seem to really believe that the language they find acceptable and the way of working in Washington they deem to be correct is the way it has to be done in order to be legitimate.

Long may Trump continue to do exactly the opposite of what they want. He has started off getting on with the business of doing what he said he'd do. It's fantastic to see a govt actually deliver on promises after they just get elected in, instead of pandering a few months before an election.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 05:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: theantediluvian




Let's get real here folks. What's the point of this ban?


Others in this thread have already bought it up, Americans will be on that list soon enough...

People are turning on each other, the proof is right in front of us with the current liberal meltdown. It will not take much for "the people" to demand their own brethren be hung out to dry in the name of security, nor does it take much for the list to be modified.

As you point out homegrown terrorists are far more of a threat than ones from overseas...


What are you on about? You think Americans will be denied entry into the country if they leave it to go on holiday? Or deported? Where are you getting this from?
I think I am on safe ground by suggesting that home grown terrorists who are American citizens will go to jail if they commit a crime, not be deported.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 05:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Snarl

How many terrorist attacks on US soil in the last eight years wouldn't have occurred if these bans were in place?

The Orlando shooter was US-born, the male terrorist in the San Bernardino shootings was American born (his wife was born in Pakistan and raised in Saudi Arabia — neither of which is on the list) and the Boston Marathon bombers had immigrated from Dagestan or Kyrgyzstan I believe (though ethnically, Chechen).

The Cascade Mall shooter was born in Turkey but immigrated to the US as a young child when his mother married an American. The NY/NJ Bomber is from Afghanistan and immigrated to the US with his family when he was like 11-12 (2000 I believe)?

So none of them?

Let's get real here folks. What's the point of this ban? Until we can make vetting foolproof? It'll never be fullproof. After all, how does one vet young children? What process could determine if 15 or 20 years down the road, a child will "self-radicalize" on the Internet?

What's to stop a jihadi from masquerading as a Christian (or any other religion)? If ISIS, Al Qaeda, whatever terrorists organization wants to direct attacks with trained/supported operatives, why wouldn't they just send them from a country not on the list?

It doesn't seem like this will have any real effect except to foster feelings of alienation among demographics that are at greatest risk for radicalization (young men)?


This is about stopping new terrorists from entering the country until acceptable vetting is in place. It is not a policy to catch terrorists already in the country. Quite sensible to turn the tap off before you start emptying the sink.

Taking this policy in isolation and then saying that it won't solve everything so there is no point is a strange position to take. As for vetting, it doesn't have to be 100% perfect, and I agree it never will be. It just has to be as good as it can be, and Trump obviously feels that it is not there yet.

There will be other policies enacted to address existing terrorists in the country and also to tackle radicalisation.
edit on 25/1/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 05:27 AM
link   
The other thing the media leaves out is the Muslim registry started under Bush and was also used by Obama, who ended the use of the program in early 2016. As I understand it, it would apply to individuals coming into the US from certain countries and would not apply to US citizens.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 05:36 AM
link   
Well enjoy folks, Antediluvian makes a valid point.

Truth is if you're hell bent on doing something, you're going to find a way to do it, nothing is impossible (unless you're a Trump supporter, objectivity isn't their strong suit).

Foreign nationals will still be able to commit atrocities unless you apply the measure across the board, look at the "radicalised in UK" people born in a country not traditionally associated with perpetrating a certain form of terrorism, still can go on to turn on their own country and cause carnage.

All this measure does is speak to the fear that makes the right, the er...right, security is one of their favourite buzzwords, yet it doesn't mean a damn thing, just like rules there are always those who will breach them.

Something which may be worth consideration...how many desirable persons of this fair planet do you think these policies will put off their visiting, or even migrating to America?

I'm sure you American folks still want to gain tourist income and benefit from the expertise of the best in certain scenarios, you could find yourself loosing in more ways than you gain eventually.

But hey, Trump is making good on his manifesto, so that's all that matters presently.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 05:38 AM
link   
It is about time for a major policy change. The last 8 years have been more than friendly to the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR...youtu.be...




posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 05:57 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

C'mon man read between the lines.....

Tell me once the threat of terrorists from overseas has been eliminated who will be its replacement ?

Sure Americans will not be deported but they can be incarcerated or even dissapeared.

This just looks to me like a really slippery slope and i think it is the kind of thing that can erode even more freedoms very quickly and reminds of the saying "first they came for the...."



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 05:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks


Who in the Trump admin gets to decide what "threat" means? Is an ideological difference seen as a threat to a Trump America?


It appears the Democrat Party really sees white people as a serious threat. Do you agree with them?



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 07:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

This was very needed, but something tells me it may be too late and there are already thousands within the U.S. (Not to mention those that were possibly flown in via stealth under the Obama administration.)


originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Snarl

and all those dems said he wouldnt follow through with his campaign promises


Shame he did not promise to End the Fed. Why he did not choose Ron Paul as part of his cabinet is beyond me. But the Federal Reserve bank should also be a primary target to cut off the Rothschild and Rockefeller's. Yes he is doing what he said he would. But those of us who are awake know, that as long as the Federal Reserve controls the economy we are at it's mercy.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Sadly we already have the damage done, no from previeous decades of Islamic foreign refugees that already have established in this nation and doing well, working and raising their families for generations, since the early 1900, but the new herd of the latest refugees that are now becoming the pro Islamic laws activist that while been already citizens in the US they are now bound to enforced the Hira and change the political landscape of our nation.

Because while they are Americans they have no loyalties, respect or hold anything that America represent as value.

This is the dangerous generation that has been sprouted from in the last few years from refugees parents that their background are in question.

America had one of the most incredible and hardest laws when it comes to how refugees were screened, but for some reason in the latest years our government increased the refugees quota and at a very fast speed, leaving the UN to do the screening.

That is unacceptable.

We own the word to be able to apply for visas and come to the US, but we own more to the citizens in this nation, tax payers and voters the promise of safety from any refugees that comes invited at the expenses of tax dollars to live and thrive in our nation among us, no to change our political landscape for the refugees benefits


edit on 25-1-2017 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Snarl
What process could determine if 15 or 20 years down the road, a child will "self-radicalize" on the Internet?

Looks like you're making a VERY practical argument for Isolationism. Might not be a bad temporary policy. At least 'til the damage 0bama was doing is undone.




top topics



 
65
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join