Only 7 of 44 Muslim nations are on the Temp Ban

So it isn't targeting Muslims. If it WERE, then why didn't Trump put the OTHER 37 Muslim countries on he list?

Weak attempt at demonizing someone MAKING AMERICA SAFE AGAIN.


Obama created that 7-country list by the way.

Also, Obama suspended the Iraq Refugee Program for 6 months in 2013. WHERE WAS CRYING CHUCKY SCHUMER THEN????

@El Kabong

P.S. out of the 345,000 passengers who arrived Saturday into America, only 109 were given EXTRA SCREENING.

Of those 109, they released/waivered 89 of them within 8 hours after screening.

We are talking about 2/100ths OF ONE PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE.

I MYSELF WAS DETAINED 3 HOURS AT JFK IN 2013. Screened and released.

Tough shit.

Get over it.

7 nations which BARACK OBAMA had cited as having terrorist problems.....but you know, whatever.

But let the knee-jerk drama queens in the media funded by George Soros and the protestors keep having seizures at the airports and blocking traffic and the exits from the terminals in New York, Miami, LAX, O'Hare, etc.

Sheeple

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanz

Sheeple

---

Yes dude, now you're getting it! :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanz

Sheeple

---

Yes dude, now you're getting it! :-)

---

no...you two

Dictionary definition of sheeple

Never debated a thing in your whole time on Saddos. No wonder you are both so prolific. Empty vases.

What's sheeple about me mentioning that this was President Obama's idea? Sure President Trump actually implemented it, but it was President Obama who thought this idea up.


According to the draft copy of Trump's executive order, the countries whose citizens are barred entirely from entering the United States is based on a bill that Obama signed into law in December 2015.

Obama signed the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act as part of an omnibus spending bill. The legislation restricted access to the Visa Waiver Program, which allows citizens from 38 countries who are visiting the United States for less than 90 days to enter without a visa.

Though outside groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and NIAC Action — the sister organization of the National Iranian American Council — opposed the act, the bipartisan bill passed through Congress with little pushback.
At the initial signing of the restrictions, foreigners who would normally be deemed eligible for a visa waiver were denied if they had visited Iran, Syria, Sudan or Iraq in the past five years or held dual citizenship from one of those countries.
In February 2016, the Obama administration added Libya, Somali and Yemen to the list of countries one could not have visited — but allowed dual citizens of those countries who had not traveled there access to the Visa Waiver Program. Dual citizens of Syria, Sudan, Iraq and Iran are still ineligible, however.
So, in a nutshell, Obama restricted visa waivers for those seven Muslim-majority countries — Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen — and now, Trump is looking to bar immigration and visitors from the same list of countries.



....so if you're mad, be mad at the correct people....President Obama and the media. President Obama for being such a RAGING Islamaphobe ;D and the media for not calling him on it ;D

You need to °°°°°THANK°°°° me & Lyle for highlighting things about US Law that you wouldn't know about as a British immigrant.

You guys should do some aged before and after photos similar to what we see after Presidents 4-8 years. Only do it for Trump supporters who are going to spend all their time sighting the loathed Obama for case support and walking back other clusterfucked half thought out plans and policies. The roll out and vetting of this EO had the look and stench of a runaway garbage truck, only lives, some -American- lives, were turned on their head. Visa and green card holders who already jumped thru hoops, U.S Military supporters, 5 year olds kids detained just so numb nuts can beat on his chest from behind his desk. Thankfully they weren't turned around and sent back because half a dozen judges stepped in. Nah man, we don't do that. That's not us. Exactly how much blood does Saudi Arabia have on its hands. What list are they on.

btw Trump needs to send out a team to kneecap Giuliani who relays first hand account of "Muslim Ban". No wonder poor fella didn't get a position after polishing Trumps apples all that time.

Who cares if they were detained for extra screening? Not the end of the world.

By the way to everybody who's jumping around with their signs protesting that Donald Trump must be at off Hitler reincarnated that executive order that he signed is still an executive order and will always be an executive order and the people from those seven countries will still be detained and or forbidden to board flights overseas headed for the United States.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust

Who cares if they were detained for extra screening? Not the end of the world.

---

Detained 'for a few hours' only after judges stepped in. No? Otherwise detained for 90 day term (???) or sent back to Country of origin. Unless of course that was-is the U.S :-X.

Blocking people with permanent residency and families to feed who have already passed all the tests and done the right things is just stupid and uncalled for. Will the koolaid drinkers admit that the policy is flawed? If Obama brought it in, then doesn't that mean Trump is a sheep for not going over it and making sure it wouldn't affect people who have done all the right things? There is controlling immigration and then there is this kind of absurdity.

We are a sovereign nation we can decide who to let in. Miles, how many do South Korea the beacon of hope for so many take in. How about Palestine and Israel or Jordan. Oh yeah Jordan doesn't let immigrants work I forgot

Yes, a sovereign country can choose whether or not to allow in illegal immigrants, but why would you want to persecute those who have passed all the tests, have settled in America and have families to feed? People with residency and visas, people have done the right things. Now, true a sovereign country can then tell them to go away too, but that is messed up and ill thought through. It sets a very bad example.

There are over a million foreign people here and to be fair there was little meddling in the Middle East, so I don't think the burden of responsbility really falls upon such countries who do let people in if they follow the procedures.

Hahaha. 109 detained out of 345,000 and little petunias want to jump around with their knickers in a right twist.

Miles if it were ONE PERSON OIT OF 7 BILLION you'd cry "fascism".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Yes, a sovereign country can choose whether or not to allow in illegal immigrants, but why would you want to persecute those who have passed all the tests, have settled in America and have families to feed? People with residency and visas, people have done the right things. Now, true a sovereign country can then tell them to go away too, but that is messed up and ill thought through. It sets a very bad example.

There are over a million foreign people here and to be fair there was little meddling in the Middle East, so I don't think the burden of responsbility really falls upon such countries who do let people in if they follow the procedures.

---

@Gandalf how many are South Korea taking we have taken millions how about u

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Yes, a sovereign country can choose whether or not to allow in illegal immigrants, but why would you want to persecute those who have passed all the tests, have settled in America and have families to feed? People with residency and visas, people have done the right things. Now, true a sovereign country can then tell them to go away too, but that is messed up and ill thought through. It sets a very bad example.

There are over a million foreign people here and to be fair there was little meddling in the Middle East, so I don't think the burden of responsbility really falls upon such countries who do let people in if they follow the procedures.

---

@Gandalf how many are South Korea taking we have taken millions how about u

---

To be fair, I didn't see many bombs being dropped on Syria nor very much in the way of arming 'rebel' groups either, so I don't see how that has anything to do with South Korea.

Of course you don't see. How convenient.

Walrus: how many people does SK take in?

Miles: oh but the central banks.......

You just can't make this shit up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Yes, a sovereign country can choose whether or not to allow in illegal immigrants, but why would you want to persecute those who have passed all the tests, have settled in America and have families to feed? People with residency and visas, people have done the right things. Now, true a sovereign country can then tell them to go away too, but that is messed up and ill thought through. It sets a very bad example.

There are over a million foreign people here and to be fair there was little meddling in the Middle East, so I don't think the burden of responsbility really falls upon such countries who do let people in if they follow the procedures.

---

@Gandalf how many are South Korea taking we have taken millions how about u

---

To be fair, I didn't see many bombs being dropped on Syria nor very much in the way of arming 'rebel' groups either, so I don't see how that has anything to do with South Korea.

---

Oh it doesn't @Gandalf we have been taking people all over the world. Countries we never engaged for a hundred years. Every corner of the globe including South Korea now u are being evasive

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Yes, a sovereign country can choose whether or not to allow in illegal immigrants, but why would you want to persecute those who have passed all the tests, have settled in America and have families to feed? People with residency and visas, people have done the right things. Now, true a sovereign country can then tell them to go away too, but that is messed up and ill thought through. It sets a very bad example.

There are over a million foreign people here and to be fair there was little meddling in the Middle East, so I don't think the burden of responsbility really falls upon such countries who do let people in if they follow the procedures.

---

@Gandalf how many are South Korea taking we have taken millions how about u

---

To be fair, I didn't see many bombs being dropped on Syria nor very much in the way of arming 'rebel' groups either, so I don't see how that has anything to do with South Korea.

---

Oh it doesn't @Gandalf we have been taking people all over the world. Countries we never engaged for a hundred years. Every corner of the globe including South Korea now u are being evasive

---

Not being evasive in the slightest. I am not even in favor of open borders, but to restrict the access and rights of permanent residents is folly.

Countries that do not destroy other countries don't really have any obligation to open their borders. The guilt of Syria is all on the West.

My argument is a simple one. Stop bombing and selling arms to other countries and just maybe there will be less chaos in this world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Yes, a sovereign country can choose whether or not to allow in illegal immigrants, but why would you want to persecute those who have passed all the tests, have settled in America and have families to feed? People with residency and visas, people have done the right things. Now, true a sovereign country can then tell them to go away too, but that is messed up and ill thought through. It sets a very bad example.

There are over a million foreign people here and to be fair there was little meddling in the Middle East, so I don't think the burden of responsbility really falls upon such countries who do let people in if they follow the procedures.

---

@Gandalf how many are South Korea taking we have taken millions how about u

---

To be fair, I didn't see many bombs being dropped on Syria nor very much in the way of arming 'rebel' groups either, so I don't see how that has anything to do with South Korea.

---

Oh it doesn't @Gandalf we have been taking people all over the world. Countries we never engaged for a hundred years. Every corner of the globe including South Korea now u are being evasive

---

Not being evasive in the slightest. I am not even in favor of open borders, but to restrict the access and rights of permanent residents is folly.

Countries that do not destroy other countries don't really have any obligation to open their borders. The guilt of Syria is all on the West.

My argument is a simple one. Stop bombing and selling arms to other countries and just maybe there will be less chaos in this world.

---

Ok we have taken in more people in the past hundred years than anyone in history. How about u guys

Your country is based upon displacing a native population. You are all immigrants if you want to take the long view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Your country is based upon displacing a native population. You are all immigrants if you want to take the long view.

---

3 so compassionate

Miles FYI my state alone took 1800 Syrians this year and it's only a month old and we are one of the smallest states you have taken 3 that's three since 1994

Pragmatic will just never be an adjective to describe these people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanz

Sheeple

---

Yes Sheeple like the flock of unwashed / yogurt knitters / z-list celebs / and immigrants protesting about Trumps visit to the UK outside downing street. - SHEEPLE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walrus

Miles FYI my state alone took 1800 Syrians this year and it's only a month old and we are one of the smallest states you have taken 3 that's three since 1994

---

I sound like a broken record, but if you wouldn't destroy a country, then there would be no need to take in refugees. Countries that remain neutral and do not cause conflict are under no obligation to get involved. I think immigration should be sensible as you will end up with no go areas and crime and a country not involved in conflicts would be foolish to invite that. It's nuts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanz

Sheeple

---

Yes Sheeple like the flock of unwashed / yogurt knitters / z-list celebs / and immigrants protesting about Trumps visit to the UK outside downing street. - SHEEPLE.

---

Curious that they didn't protest two weeks ago when Obama, on his way out, ended the 60 year "wet foot/dry foot" policy and screwed of literal boatloads of Cuban refugees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

The guilt of Syria is all on the West.

---

Ummmm how so? Bashir Assad ain't our guy...he's Russia's guy.

Hawaii was the first state to overturn this ban.

Aloha Akbar ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by X

Hawaii was the first state to overturn this ban.

Aloha Akbar ;D

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2fL2l8SZFM

Apparently Donald Trum was asked if he actually knew the difference between Sunni and Shia ......

.... he shook his head and said that he couldn't tell them apart, but he did know that they sung 'I've Got You Babe'

:cool: