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.

 

No borders. No nations. No clue.

page: 3
25
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Let's make it easier:




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.

...



When one reads the order, it's completely egregious how the media has reported this.
edit on 31-1-2017 by loam because: (no reason given)




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

The only arguments I have seen are the legality and constitutionality of it. As to whether it is right, arguably yes. It's merely a temporary ban on regions designated as hostile to American interests. I think it is vital to get a handle on what is going on and attempt to create a proper vetting process so that we may help people while remaining safe.

I responded previously based on the tone and structure of your source.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: mobiusmale
For some reason, and I doubt I will ever understand why...

Ever read the Constitution?
Feel free, then you'll understand what's 'wrong' with Trump's selective Muslim ban!

What would you want to bet that Trump NEVER read the Constitution through?



Show how it is a ban on Muslims, links please, support your claim.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 12:28 PM
link   

“A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation.”

― Ronald Reagan


"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But,
under the name of 'Liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program,
until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."


- Norman Thomas (US Socialist Presidential Candidate)

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent
the government from wasting the labors of the people
under the pretense of taking care of them."

- Thomas Jefferson

"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country.
One is by the sword. The other is by debt."

- John Adams
(How about a $18 trillion dollar deficit?)



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: ksiezyc
a reply to: Aazadan

The only arguments I have seen are the legality and constitutionality of it. As to whether it is right, arguably yes. It's merely a temporary ban on regions designated as hostile to American interests. I think it is vital to get a handle on what is going on and attempt to create a proper vetting process so that we may help people while remaining safe.

I responded previously based on the tone and structure of your source.


Legality and constitutionality have been the main arguments on this board, there's no substance to either. It's just people trying to oppose the EO using whatever words sound good. I would much rather discuss if the EO should have been issued in the first place.

The problem I see with it, is that it's a temporary ban in order to develop a better vetting process. My question though is, what exactly are we supposed to be improving with our vetting process? The cynic and anti Trump part of me believes it's going to be a 90 day ban, then we're going to claim a new and improved process, and in reality nothing will have changed, only the appearance that something changed. Style over substance is Trumps standard operating procedure and that's what I see here.

The US already had the strictest immigration procedure in the world. We put you through 19 different agencies checking their databases and using terrorist lists developed by the NSA to make lists of people that we want to keep out. On top of that it's a multi year process. Our procedures are so strict that people who helped us and saved our troops lives in Afghanistan and Iraq are unable to come over because they have loose terrorist ties (from having had information to give to our people).

Just what exactly are we going to cobble together in 90 days that's more exclusive than the current system? If anything I think we need to loosen it up a bit when letting people initially come over, but then more heavily monitor communications for a couple years after they do.

Trump has offered zero specifics just something called extreme vetting which he has never defined. He's got 89 more days to implement the solution he claims to have. It's time to put up, lets see his solution that screens people more intensely than what they already go through.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: mobiusmale
For some reason, and I doubt I will ever understand why...

Ever read the Constitution?
Feel free, then you'll understand what's 'wrong' with Trump's selective Muslim ban!

What would you want to bet that Trump NEVER read the Constitution through?



Show how it is a ban on Muslims, links please, support your claim.

Don't be silly, what, do you think, is the religion of over 90% of all the refugees?
You hardly see Jewish groups up in arms, or Catholics/Xtians or Buddhists.
The vastest majority are Muslims.
(Excluding from the ban, of course, the countries with which Trump does business...)
Of course you always have the 'alternative facts', like it was just a coincidence that the countries banned just happened to be majority Muslim.
That he really didn't seek help with his "Muslim Ban"?
(Wasn't that a very recent headline?
Must be 'false news' or 'unfair'!
Right?
Pathetic excuse, if you ask me.
The WH is filled with racists who got elected by other racists to go forth and do racist stuff.
Don't disseminate now!
Say it, Mexicans are criminals and Muslims are terrorists and should both be kept out der Fatherland.
And keep out the Jews, too, of course... *__-

Nah, if stats are needed, unbiased stats, you'd need them to educate me.
We can start with the % majority religion of those refugees refused entry into our oh-so 'Xtian' country...
And, about his direct quote asking how to enact his "Muslim ban".

In a way, I am enjoying the numbers of his followers who are getting tired of being betrayed, tired of inventing 'alternative', tired of having to turn to the White House for approval of all 'thoughts'.
No?
You will be. *__-







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



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: namelesss

The spirit of the order is to ban Muslims, that's pretty obvious. The letter of the law though is that it doesn't. It's banning everyone from those nations. Most of who it's banning are Muslims, but that doesn't mean they're being banned because they're Muslim.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 09:00 PM
link   
How this thread makes me feel:




posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: ksiezyc
a reply to: namelesss

INA. Feng Yue Ting v US.

All that needs to be said. 100% legal.

Despite your alphabet soup, the courts will decide the 'legality', and King Trump's first decree appears to be (get used to it) losing legal ground.
I know, 'false unfair courts'...! *__-



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



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 09:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: mobiusmale
For some reason, and I doubt I will ever understand why...

Ever read the Constitution?
Feel free, then you'll understand what's 'wrong' with Trump's selective Muslim ban!

What would you want to bet that Trump NEVER read the Constitution through?



www.law.cornell.edu...
9f

Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
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.


Case closed, Constitutionality of ban upheld by already tested federal law, authority of POTUS to control immigration and visitation from ANY nation, group, or class of visitor unquestioned by both law and SCOTUS precedent.

Y'all can keep claiming it isn't Constitutional or legal all ya want, facts prove you 100% wrong.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Is nice to see how the activist media and the no longer for Americans Democratic party is brain washing those that think the Democrats are still for America.

The Democratic is officially showing their colors, they are not longer the Red, White and Blue, but any other color that fills their dirty pockets so they can kill the American nation to be turned like the European mess union

Specially the dirty money been funneled by their middle eastern friends.

I give them another 10 years and the Democratic party will become the Islamic party.

Don't believe me? wait and see.

America takes a million a year of Muslim from around the word and guess what they stay in the US with their visas and green cards

So please People needs to stop been obtuse, is not such a thing as a ban on Muslims.

That is a lie

America is been invaded thanks to Obama caca and his now Muslim pandering party.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: namelesss

I can not wait to see the Supreme court interpreting the law as the constitution allows them to do, I bet the now Islamic pandering Schumer will have the lady Justice crying this time along with lady liberty.

Schumer is another one that has taken sides and his side is not America and the American people anymore.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: 727Sky

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: mobiusmale
For some reason, and I doubt I will ever understand why...

Ever read the Constitution?
Feel free, then you'll understand what's 'wrong' with Trump's selective Muslim ban!

What would you want to bet that Trump NEVER read the Constitution through?



You ever read the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952... That pesky little law that Jimmy Carter used to kick out 15,000 Iranians back in 1979 ?

Didn't think so...

That might work for some, a Trumpish personal zinger to distract from the question.
A 'poisoned Tweet'...
I asked a question, and you have not answered it, attempted an end run...
'Alternative facts' would be more entertaining than that attempted distraction.
Besides, the courts (remember them? Thank Dog we got em, as corrupt as they are...) are here to run the Constitutionality and legality of our fearless monarch's decrees and edicts.
So far, muster is not being passed.
I predict that it will be a long, tedious road to impeachment...



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: namelesss




Despite your alphabet soup,


So you're too lazy to look up a Supreme Court case? Why even post in this thread?



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 10:37 PM
link   
The first amendment guarantees freedom of faith for every American citizen. Donald Trump has not violated this.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 11:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: namelesss

The spirit of the order is to ban Muslims, that's pretty obvious. The letter of the law though is that it doesn't. It's banning everyone from those nations. Most of who it's banning are Muslims, but that doesn't mean they're being banned because they're Muslim.


Close. I'd say the spirit of the order is to ban terrorists. I agree with the rest of your post.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 11:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: mobiusmale
For some reason, and I doubt I will ever understand why...

Ever read the Constitution?
Feel free, then you'll understand what's 'wrong' with Trump's selective Muslim ban!

What would you want to bet that Trump NEVER read the Constitution through?



Show how it is a ban on Muslims, links please, support your claim.

Don't be silly, what, do you think, is the religion of over 90% of all the refugees?
You hardly see Jewish groups up in arms, or Catholics/Xtians or Buddhists.
The vastest majority are Muslims.
(Excluding from the ban, of course, the countries with which Trump does business...)
Of course you always have the 'alternative facts', like it was just a coincidence that the countries banned just happened to be majority Muslim.
That he really didn't seek help with his "Muslim Ban"?
(Wasn't that a very recent headline?
Must be 'false news' or 'unfair'!
Right?
Pathetic excuse, if you ask me.
The WH is filled with racists who got elected by other racists to go forth and do racist stuff.
Don't disseminate now!
Say it, Mexicans are criminals and Muslims are terrorists and should both be kept out der Fatherland.
And keep out the Jews, too, of course... *__-

Nah, if stats are needed, unbiased stats, you'd need them to educate me.
We can start with the % majority religion of those refugees refused entry into our oh-so 'Xtian' country...
And, about his direct quote asking how to enact his "Muslim ban".

In a way, I am enjoying the numbers of his followers who are getting tired of being betrayed, tired of inventing 'alternative', tired of having to turn to the White House for approval of all 'thoughts'.
No?
You will be. *__-








If it's a ban on Muslims then answer these two questions.

1. Why are they also banning other religions and races in those same countries?

2. There is 41 other countries with Muslim majority populations, why aren't we banning them?

I have a few other questions pertaining to your post (which looks to have been written by a lunatic)....

3. What do you mean Trump excluded countries he does business in?

4. How does letting in these refugees benefit average Joe that got laid off at the factory?

Good luck!






posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 11:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: ksiezyc
a reply to: namelesss

INA. Feng Yue Ting v US.

All that needs to be said. 100% legal.

Despite your alphabet soup, the courts will decide the 'legality', and King Trump's first decree appears to be (get used to it) losing legal ground.
I know, 'false unfair courts'...! *__-




You got a link to something supporting this claim?



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 11:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: mobiusmale
For some reason, and I doubt I will ever understand why...

Ever read the Constitution?
Feel free, then you'll understand what's 'wrong' with Trump's selective Muslim ban!

What would you want to bet that Trump NEVER read the Constitution through?



Why don't you quote the part in the constitution that pertains to what you allege is a Muslim ban.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale

So.... now we're aspiring to be like China, Iran and Saudi Arabia?

Okay. That gives a good illustration of where we're going.

(I'll refrain from responding the way Trump supporters do "why don't you go live there then? Don't let the door hit you on the way out!")




top topics



 
25
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join