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.

 

Donald Trump refugee ban: 'arrivals from targeted countries stopped at US airports'

page: 13
27
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: SeekingAlpha

It takes at least 2 years to go through security screening under Obama to be a refugee in the US. I can assure you that under Obama, we have not allowed "terrorists" into the US.



It does ?

Can you prove that with a government source ?





posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Meanwhile
Iran's Asghar Farhadi won't be let into the US to attend Oscar's. He's nominated for best foreign language film...



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 02:05 PM
link   
So, ban everybody but those from the proverbial ground zero of extremist teaching. Because THAT makes sense to give a pass to.


You want to ban people coming in? Fine, deny entry. What's more concerning is revoking green cards from people who haven't violated a damn thing. I have a lot to say about that s#, too bad ATS has word censors



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Wait. The temporary refugee ban also includes people travelling to the United States from those countries?

This is what I'm beginning to "get" or understand by watching CNN and looking through the MSM's reporting.

And now Iran has banned all Americans from entering their country?

I'm not referring to work Visas or long-term stay Visas, but just people travelling.

It's getting very confusing now, the way it's being spun and reported.

I'm coming under the impression that NO ONE from those countries can travel to the US and that no American citizen can travel to Iran and that's absurd, that's looks more like a wartime measure.

Does this mean that Americans serving in Iraq or about to travel there to serve, maybe even as a contractor, if Iraq were to follow suit with Iran, could be effected?

What's going on here?

I thought it just applied to refugees, but the way the MSM is running this, now it appears to be all travellers.

WTF?!

edit on 28-1-2017 by AnkhMorpork because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nyiah
So, ban everybody but those from the proverbial ground zero of extremist teaching. Because THAT makes sense to give a pass to.


You want to ban people coming in? Fine, deny entry. What's more concerning is revoking green cards from people who haven't violated a damn thing. I have a lot to say about that s#, too bad ATS has word censors


Yeah, is Saudi Arabia on the list? The ban makes mention of 9/11.

This is not good. This will be used and twisted every which way, including as an Islamophobic clash of civilizations, particularly the way the MSM is spinning it.

And you're right. This is a violation of the rights and freedoms of everyone who'd done all the right things and nothing wrong and who've already been vetted up the ying yang.

It smacks of Hitlerian isolationism and Islamophobia and a religious test with Christian minorities being given priority status.

If the Trump administration doesn't clarify and put a finer point on this, then it's in trouble for taking on "Islam" and appearing to engage in Religious bias and intolerance.

This needs to be clarified because it's getting confusing. Iran has followed suit now in relation to American citizens, but none of this means a TRAVEL BAN, does it?

I believe that Trump needs to address this ASAP via Sean Spicer and commenting on it himself in some depth, or this is very bad news and bad news for the whole course of generating a friendly and moderate Islam.

Iran's reaction is this is VERY alarming, imho.

edit on 28-1-2017 by AnkhMorpork because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork

Yeah, is Saudi Arabia on the list? The ban makes mention of 9/11.

This is not good. This will be used and twisted every which way, including as an Islamophobic clash of civilizations, particularly the way the MSM is spinning it.

And you're right. This is a violation of the rights and freedoms of everyone who'd done all the right things and nothing wrong and who've already been vetted up the ying yang.

It smacks of Hitlerian isolationism and Islamophobia and a religious test with Christian minorities being given priority status.

If the Trump administration doesn't clarify and put a finer point on this, then it's in trouble for taking on Islam and appearing to engage in Religious bias and intolerance.

This needs to be clarified because it's getting confusing. Iran has followed suit now in relation to American citizens, but none of this means a TRAVEL BAN, does it?

I'm trying really hard to remain civil about this, but it's pretty fekking hard to. It's completely UNETHICAL to punish people who have not violated any laws (kind of a damned condition of keeping green card)

My stepmother and my husband are naturalized immigrants, stepmother from China, husband from Germany. How long before it's switched to "people not born here"? It's a slippery slope with high odds of snowballing. if that happens, screw this country, it deserves wiped off the map for being everything freedom does not stand for.
edit on 1/28/2017 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

I don't think that the Trump administration have grasped or caught up with what this really signifies and represents, although I suppose it might be a good "JOLT" to the Islamic world not to be radical and to stand against radical terrorist views, but how this helps that process is beyond me. This runs the risk of lining the USA up against a "religion" and that's not good, not good at all and it does contain within it the possibility for a backlash in a type of anger and outrage against the United States that will make Americans much less safe, not more safe.

It's an error. Trump's first big mistake, unless he's listening and gets on it right away with a great dealing of clarification and fine point diplomacy while talking about American rights and freedoms as they relate to the larger world, including the Islamic world.

He's gone and stepped in it, and he'd better get out fast by clarifying and talking about how the ban is only temporary whose lifting will be done as quickly as possible, based on an intensive review process.

He must clarify!



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: everyone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: everyone

So because Saudi Arabia is a crappy country that is known for ignoring civil and human rights, America should copy them?



No. As your President has pointed out, pressure should be exerted to ensure countries in the middle east set up safe zones to quickly house refugees instead of flying them all around the world to completely different cultures. This will ensure they are not blown up and killed, plus make it much easier for them to return to their country when things have settled down.
Maybe it's just too much common sense for you.


I was about to respond with a similar response.

Liberals are doing their best to call us bigots and racists for any argument against "refugee's" and thats about all we ever hear but not one ever points out that their fellow muslim countries and then even the richest of them spit these people out over security concerns because they know they would be allowing a lot of terrorists into their country.

And then once they are hear we are racists and biggots for expressing concern about islamic terrorisme. Then when they do in fact execute mass murdering of people in islamic terrorist act, we still get called biggots and racists. And then they aplaud a president that wants to ban people from saying the words "islamic terrorism" all the while while countries like saudi arabia refuses to take them because of that same terrorism.

Also the fact that a lot of these people died because they attempted to cross oceans in rubber boats because countries like saudi arabia refused them access. But hey, lets not worry about that lets point the finger at "white supremacist" america.

All this is the same reason you dont see these "progressives" with signs in their hands standing up for homosexuals in saudi arabia and iraq or iran. They dont really care. So they do it here where we only have a couple of million gay clubs and open gay parades.

And again fact remains that most of these so called refugee's come from all over the world and not syria, i was not aware there was a world war going on for which america needs to open its doors.

They dont have much of a argument but they sure know how to point the finger at the wrong people.





Present an argument that's not grounded in bigotry and you won't be called a bigot?

Once again, what's the number of terrorist attacks committed in American compared to the number of refugees in America?

Life must #ing suck when you're scared of boogeymen.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: everyone


Then when they do in fact execute mass murdering of people in islamic terrorist act, we still get called biggots and racists.

When did that happen?
I thought it was all home-grown nutjobs that mass murder people here. Even the Boston Bombers were citizens.

If we ban all foreigners, ISIS has won. It's not like they murdered all those people in Paris and then said, "well, that's that, then!" and closed things down.

The decimation of our world heritage, and the slaughter and displacement of civilians is horrendous. It's no different from any other war of aggression in history.




When had a major US city been attacked by aircraft killing over 3,000 citizens before 9/11?
A President can not wait for the death of citizens to act. He has a responsibility to keep Americans safe. He has already said that some refugees are involved with or have been arrested relating to terrorism. He would be derelict in his duty to wait for a major incident.

The fact is there is a solution that does not require the mass influx of refugees to the US. You, and other people who have a beef with Trump, seem to be ignoring it and also what is best for refugees, just because you want to attack Trump. I ask, do you REALLY care about the refugees at all?



You mean the attack that was a pretext to launch two goddamned wars? The attack that made so many western countries rich? That attack?

Weapons of mass destruction? Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq because some Saudi hijackers smashed planes into buildings?

Be careful going outside now, those 'others' might get you.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Im not sure if I've seen this mentioned in this thread, but im also seeing that people with dual citizenship (such as people in the UK with UK and Iraq Citizenship) are being blocked from coming over too. This is becoming a big issue real quick.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: UKTruth


Your govt has said very clearly in the Executive Order issued, which I have posted for you three times, that refugees HAVE been either convicted or implicated in terrorist related crimes.

You are making a choice to not believe them, but it does not change reality. You know nothing about who may be under investigation or implicated, but your govt is telling you some are.



Donald Trump said in his Executive Order that somewhere at some time there was a refugee who was charged with something. No specifics. Donald Trump said all during his campaign that he would ban Muslims from entering the country if he was elected. His conservative base loved this and elected him for it. He's just delivering to them by issuing this EO. No specific situation exists at this moment. Just some vague reasoning.


That is not what the EO says. It is actually more vague than that even - I am quite sure they are not going to give out details of investigations.
The decision has been made that the screening needs to be improved.
Nothing you (or I) say or do will change that now.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth



The decision has been made that the screening needs to be improved.
Nothing you (or I) say or do will change that now.


I wouldn't be too sure about that.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: UKTruth



The decision has been made that the screening needs to be improved.
Nothing you (or I) say or do will change that now.


I wouldn't be too sure about that.


Unless the the law is changed or Trump changes his mind, the ban will last for the allotted time (which is 90 days for those countries and 120 days for refugees).

From October last year:


Candidate Trump was never particularly specific on the policy details of how the Muslim ban would work. But with President-elect Trump set to take office in January, and his pledge to implement the ban on day one now about to be put to the test, the question looms: Will he be able to do it, and if so, how? I put that to several experts on US immigration law. Their answer was unanimous: Trump would be able to implement his ban. In fact, he would be able to do it easily. Congress has already granted wide power to the president to alter immigration rules, so he will not need congressional approval. If the ban is designed properly, it is virtually guaranteed to survive court challenges from liberal advocacy groups determined to derail it.



In 1952, Congress passed something called the Immigration and Nationality Act. It has been amended dozens of times subsequently, and currently exists as a 600-page behemoth with lots of very specific rules.

There is one section, 212(f), that is particularly relevant to the Muslim ban. It sets out criteria for “excludable aliens” — which noncitizens the president can choose, using executive powers, to prevent from entering the United States.

Its wording is exceptionally broad: Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any 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.

Translated from legalese: The president can ban whoever he wants, however long he wants, for whatever reason he wants.


So, unless something like 30 Republicans in the house side with democrats and then 2/3 of the Senate vote in a change to law, Trump's word is final and no legal challenge is going to pass muster. The 2/3 vote in the senate is required, because with anything less Trump can veto the bill.

After today, the people from those countries, and the world, know that Trump is quite serious and will be crystal clear that they should cancel any plans to travel.
edit on 28/1/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

There is a difference you know. It is my Constitutional right to own a weapon. Some sketchy so-called refugee from Syria has absolutely zero Constitutional rights until he is on US soil.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: savemebarry

originally posted by: kaylaluv
Yes apparently he has the power to force innocent Syrian families to continue to be blown up to bits while refusing to offer them any kind of sanctuary.

Sad.


you are standing at your front window. You see rival bikie gangs shoot it out, killing each other. You open your front door and yell "Hey guys come inside for some lemonade!"

what do you think will happen? Oh sure your next door neighbour was the one who called the bad bikies to fight the quiet ones.. but hey - who do you know is who?

But meh, as long asyour front door is open to the bikies, and all..



You are clueless. Get off the internet and go back to watching your preferred sports channel while downing your extra large Diet Coke.

America is safe. Show me a statistic otherwise. More people die from guns or falling out of bed than from any one of the countries trump trash has banned.

Believe me.


(post by muse7 removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)
(post by reaganero removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
But i still bet saudis are pouring in..........


A ban is pointless until Saudi Arabia is added to that list!


He has business interests in Saudi Arabia, so why would he add them to the list?

Business over everything else, eh?

He has no business interests in the countries on the list.

And so the Muslim detainment begins.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Thats because the United Arab Emirates and Turkey are not countries where terrorism is a problem. Syria, Iraq, and other countries are. Happy he had the forethought to not start business ventures in countries where government instability led to terrorism.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 06:41 PM
link   
I'd said that he must clarify, to draw the appropriate distinctions and try to wind down the anger and outrage and discouragement.

He said "it's working out very nicely" and that's it that's all so far..

My only concern at this point, is whether he would even be capable of clarifying and putting a fine point on it.

What's wrong with his English language skills and why are they so lacking?

That said I do like his authenticity compared with Obama's posturing, but he needs to say something more, because it's quite possible that he's doing the American people and the world a disservice and making things more volatile, not less so.

Also, will those countries now respond like Iran did and ban American citizens from travelling there? That would be so unhelpful imho.

Edit to add: Why was Pakistan and Saudi Arabia not included? That doesn't make any sense.

edit on 28-1-2017 by AnkhMorpork because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join