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.

 

Trump Administration Says Green Card Holders Won’t Be Barred

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Tardacus

If it was a mistake. Seems like the need for CTs has faded for some.

I guess it makes no difference to those opposed to Trump if it was or wasn't, they seem to be bent on taking him to task at every step.
edit on 29-1-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

It was not a mistake.
It was just said on the news that people with green cards were always able to be admitted under this EO.
They are cleared and admitted by DHS as they apply for entry, and every one so far (approx 170) has been admitted.
They are vetted again, as they always have been.

This is not a new thing.
This is how this EO works.
The media is just spinning it, as they always do.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

Then why the waiver?



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 08:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: BlueAjah

Then why the waiver?


What "waiver" ?

The comments are a clarification.




posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I saw the word "waiver" in regards to the words of the EO that didn't really take into account the different classification of immigrants.

Call it what you want but the EO did not take into account those different types of immigrants.

Whether you see it as deliberate or an honest mistake depends on your cheer-leading outfit.
edit on 29-1-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


Here is the DHS Secretary's clarification officially.....


Statement By Secretary John Kelly On The Entry Of Lawful Permanent Residents Into The United States


Release Date:
January 29, 2017

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
Contact: 202-282-8010

WASHINGTON – In applying the provisions of the president's executive order, I hereby deem the entry of lawful permanent residents to be in the national interest.

Accordingly, absent the receipt of significant derogatory information indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare, lawful permanent resident status will be a dispositive factor in our case-by-case determinations.


And that response is actually a response to a rumor published that said a DHS employee sent an email to Reuters saying otherwise.




posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

"I hereby deem" seems to be a "waiver".

You don't need to "deem" by way of "the present" that which already was.

You just can't help but cheer, can you?



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: xuenchen

"I hereby deem" seems to be a "waiver".

You don't need to "deem" by way of "the present" that which already was.

You just can't help but cheer, can you?


deem
dēm/
verb
verb: deem; 3rd person present: deems; past tense: deemed; past participle: deemed; gerund or present participle: deeming

regard or consider in a specified way.

Not a waiver.




posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

You have to take the entire sentence to get the context.

"In applying the provision" he "considers" green card holders in a specified way. Yeah, it's a waiver. I also don't see them denying that it is a waiver. Why would it bother you if it is?
edit on 29-1-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Not a waiver. A waiver in this context would use the word "waiver".






posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

No, a waiver doesn't need to use the word waiver. It is the name given to the act of waiving a right or claim, like the one you linked.

Even if it wasn't a waiver, it still a mistake in the redaction of the EO.

Somebody messed up. It isn't even that big of a deal unless you think it is deliberate or whatever reason you have that creates this need for it not be a waiver or even a mistake.


edit on 29-1-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

A waiver needs the word "waiver" in its context.




posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

No.

The statement is a response to a rumor that was amplified by a renegade MSM.






posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 10:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
A waiver needs the word "waiver" in its context.


Anything to back up the claim that a waiver must include the word "waiver"?

It also isn't just a statement in response to a rumor. He specifically states that he is applying the provision to deem the entry of all lawful permanent residents in the national interest.

He is using the power given to him to waive the need for lawful permanent residents to prove that their entry is in the national interest so that it is automatically assumed.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Blame the fake news mass hysteria media for causing problems that did not exist.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join