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.

 

Fellow Trump supporters Lets admit the refugee order was poorly executed

page: 8
40
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

National Security: One irony of the controversial new policy is that while its refugee ban and visa suspensions are purported to combat terrorism, the seven countries affected have not been the source of deadly attacks on U.S. soil . On top of that, the travel ban risks fueling ISIS propaganda that casts the Muslim world as America’s enemy. Elsewhere in national-security news, Trump raised even more eyebrows this weekend by appointing former Breitbart executive chair Steve Bannon to the National Security Council—while limiting the presence of the director of national intelligence and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It’s the first time a political strategist will get a seat at that table .



this was from The Atlantic's daily newsletter. I get it in my email. Actual real news and investigative journalism, professionally sourced and fact-checked prior to publishing.

It's about as fair and balanced as media can get. Check it out.


I would bet that Axelrod was on the big O's nsc buzzy......
Something else the msm is lying to you about




posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

!!

The Atlantic is hardly MSM. For crying out loud!!

It's actual journalism and sourced writing. The articles are long, the words are big, and the concepts are sophisticated.
There is nothing inflammatory about it.




posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 09:17 AM
link   
okay, I have once again managed to derail a good thread. Sorry, Grambler. I applaud your generosity and civil approach. Sorry for joining the meeting.

Au revoir, all.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody




• For the first time in history, a president’s chief political strategist will be invited to attend any meeting of the National Security Council and will be a regular member of the highly-influential Principals Committee (PC). Now, politics finding its way into a president’s national-security decision-making is nothing new. But it rarely (if ever) gets a seat in the White House Situation Room—for good reason. To place a purely political operative on the NSC—alongside actual Cabinet members with national-security responsibilities or expertise—is an unprecedented move with profound implications for how national-security policies are developed and executed. To be clear, that concern is not confined to Steve Bannon. This would be the case no matter who it was.

from your propaganda rag that distorts the actual truth....




Yes, Obama adviser David Axelrod regularly attended NSC meetings, as Spicer has said. But Axelrod noted he never sat in on a Principals Committee meeting.

www.npr.org...

npr
even npr will admit that this is not "THE FIRST"

sell your easily dispelled left lies elsewhere
this is why no one trusts the msm anymore buzzy
they distort facts with opinions



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 09:39 AM
link   
The order was given in regard to national security. On 9/11 every plane in the country was grounded indefinitely with no warning. National security. The threat on 9/11 was very immediate, but in some ways you can say the threat still is. Not knowing who the enemy is or where they are is a bad situation to be in. Anything we can do to change that has to be good.

I would not go as far as to say he should not have issued the order but I agree that there should have been a better plan for handing the people already in the air. Still, that is a relatively low number and the results weren't devastating so much as inconvenient. People have been held over in airports for much longer than this for a variety of reasons. Its not as if the people already in the air were never going to reach a destination. It was a delay until more vetting could be done.

All this neural upset is over a temporary delay for a small number of passengers resulting from a temporary ban on travel from suspect nations. It seems the reaction is disproportionate to the event itself.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 09:55 AM
link   



edit on 31-1-2017 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Yeah, I heard that after I posted. I feel like the real reason is typing off the left. Tipping off terrorists sounds a little flimsy to me, especially after watching Spicers defense.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 10:29 AM
link   
BTW, let's put the actual EO language in this thread:




Full Text.

...

Section 1. Purpose.

...

In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

...

I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).

...

After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this section until compliance occurs.

...

Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.

...

Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.

...

the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest — including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship — and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.

...




posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


If the US took in 10,000 refugees tomorrow, you would say, "Oh those 10,000 were safe, so why not the rest of the refugees waiting".

And why not? What do we hope to gain from refusing refuge to people who are desperate?

10,000 people is not a lot of people to take in. If we're worried about us letting in terrorists, lets stop pretending this is something we can prevent

They're either here - or they will find a way in. Radicalization happens - and it happens when people are angry, have no future that they can count on - and are offered either financial gain for themselves and their desperate families, or they're allowed to be a apart of something that gives them a sense of purpose and accomplishment

No different from the radicals we've had that were born here and killed fellow Americans.

More than once - I could go on...

Desperation, suffering - no future...done. People with nothing to lose

Meanwhile, what we're doing is sentencing these people to at the least abject misery, and at most death

Now I wait for the honest people to say: I don't care

Christians, decent law abiding Americans that believe our country stands for something bigger and better than all the rest of the countries in the world, people who say they will die to protect our country - what are you all afraid of?

Quit pretending that by being American we are somehow special. If this is something we would allow we're not special - not in a good way


edit on 1/31/2017 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tardacus
yeah it was,
he should have had a new vetting process in place before he started locking people out.

after it was in place then he could have said, everyone has to be re-vetted and it could take awhile, in the meantime you can`t enter.

So all the terrorists know to come now? Genius.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 01:25 PM
link   
I do think the EO was rolled out quite quickly and haphazardly. With that admittance, I will also say that I think it is in general a good idea for a new administration, probably EVERY new administration, to review current vetting processes.

I think Trump is partially fueled by fear which makes him act quickly. I, of course, do not have the same intelligence gathering ability that the U.S. government possesses so I cannot say if there was a direct threat or not. If there was indeed intelligence that determined there was a direct imminent threat, then I completely understand the haste. If there was not, which I believe to be the case, then the administration seems to have acted out of fear. The EO could have been rolled out more effectively and with less of a shock if only they had taken the time.

Had the Trump administration taken an additional month to really refine this order, would things really have been that different? I believe it would still have the same effect in regards to homeland security, but with less of the initial confusion and shock that we currently see...

A2D



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Grambler
What do we hope to gain from refusing refuge to people who are desperate?

...What we're doing is sentencing these people to at the least abject misery, and at most death

Now I wait for the honest people to say: I don't care



How about a different kind of honest perspective...

When a country descends into chaos, a foreign policy by other nations that permits that country's brain-trust and natural opposition to flee ensures the demise of that country.

If we want to help those people, we need to help them there, not here. So that when they prevail, they can make their country great again, to coin a phrase.

Current humanitarian refugee thinking is seriously flawed. It dooms the countries with trouble to generations of chaos and exposes those with the power to do something about it as spineless. Taking in refugees without a plan to fix why they flee in the first place is simply unsustainable and improves nothing.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
I do think the EO was rolled out quite quickly and haphazardly. With that admittance, I will also say that I think it is in general a good idea for a new administration, probably EVERY new administration, to review current vetting processes.



There you go.

People in the air, heading to America. Some having gone through 10+ years of LEGAL processing facing a slammed door on arrival.

That's just not right.

That's not presidential. That's a stunt.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 02:05 PM
link   
How many have actually read the EO versus just parroting what their favorite talking head says?



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

No it's not right....but according to most sources I've seen, the issues regarding those already in transit have largely already been rectified. So even though the EO was rolled out quite quickly and haphazardly, kudos to them for actually addressing the issues it caused...

A2D



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm willing to bet very few.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Annee

No it's not right....but according to most sources I've seen, the issues regarding those already in transit have largely already been rectified. So even though the EO was rolled out quite quickly and haphazardly, kudos to them for actually addressing the issues it caused...

A2D


I'm not so sure I believe that.

It should not have happened in the first place.

It shows extreme immaturity and a "trigger finger" mentality.

Do you think a person with this kind of mentality won't be repetitive in regards to other issues.

NOTE: I did not say anything against immigration laws.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm willing to bet very few.



Of course.

It's easier to believe someone on a cable news station than to actually take the time and read words and make your own mind up.

I don't see anything wrong with the EO as it is written.

I do not have a problem of keeping people out of the country that may harm people.

My only issue with it is that it did not include enough countries.

But that is just my personal opinion.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

I agree it shouldn't have happened in the first place. But I also believe in giving credit where credit is due...they could have simply ignored the issues it caused instead of actually addressing them. It's actually a bit surprising the issues were apparently handled as quickly as they were...

I do think this fiasco will be a learning experience for this administration. The uproar and confusion it has caused can't possibly go unnoticed...

A2D



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy




My only issue with it is that it did not include enough countries. But that is just my personal opinion.


I agree



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join