jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (26 posts)

What Do You Think of the Immigration Ban?

  1. Sychophantastic profile image82
    Sychophantasticposted 3 months ago

    President Trump has come through on one of his campaign promises and instituted a travel ban to prevent terrorists from entering our country.

    His extreme vetting policy will make us much safer from radical Islamic terrorists.

    As Kellyanne Conway said, we need to prevent massacres like the one that happened in Bowling Green. I had never heard of this massacre before because the lamestream media decided not to cover it. Unbelievable! Former President Obama let in terrorists from Iraq and look what they did.

    No more Bowling Greens!

    1. Castlepaloma profile image27
      Castlepalomaposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      No Muslim refugees have killed an American on US soil. Zero

      Americans have killed millions of them.

      Seem fair, right?☺

    2. colorfulone profile image88
      colorfuloneposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      I was listening to a video with one of our troops who is working in Iraq and he talked to some of the Iraqis and asked them what would happen if he went outside to walk around. They told him that he would be taken, torture, and beheaded within an hour because the locals want to kill any American they can. They aren't SIS are anything like that, just locals.  This was a big muscular guy that looks like he could take on 6 or 7 men single handed, but he can't go outside because he would be killed by the Iraqi locals. 

      I think we should bring our guys home.

    3. PhoenixV profile image81
      PhoenixVposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      How could you miss it, it was news in all 52 states. Thank God, No Corpse Men were injured.

  2. wilderness profile image95
    wildernessposted 3 months ago

    That's a little misleading: the ban on travel has nothing to do with immigration.  And, in spite of what so many would have us all believe, it is not limited to Muslims and has nothing to do with religious affiliation.

    1. Sychophantastic profile image82
      Sychophantasticposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      I changed that to make it more accurate.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        smile

      2. Castlepaloma profile image27
        Castlepalomaposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Hold on there.

        Two judge have blocked Trump illegal action to ban Muslims immigration

        Giuliani confirms it is a ban on Muslims as Trump went to Giuliani for instructions how to label it. Muslims is a Religion.

        What next, do you have to show a picture of a cow to Republican. Then state, this is a picture of a cow, then have Republican disagree.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          Except there IS no "ban on Muslims immigration".  So there is no two judge that has blocked it, either.

          Apparently you don't know a cow from a kangaroo.

          1. Castlepaloma profile image27
            Castlepalomaposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            I feel Iike I jumped into a kangaroo courtroom.

            Kangaroo is a wildlife animal free like me and a cow is livestock with meat and milk filled of diseases. The space cows occupies destroy land and widlife and where vegetables could grow and produce cheaper and healthier food. Without Mexican cheap labor , the rest of the green will rot. Rednecks and hicks love cow.

            If Muslim is not Religion then what does Muslim mean? -Terrorist, like the action Trump is taking to ban many refugees and green card and permanent muslim residence too.  Now we all have to wait until Trump tries too figures it all out.

            If you think there no judges on many of these cases and no protestor across the nations at airports and homes.  Another fact, emu bury their head in the sand , not ostriches.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              You can pretend that "Muslim" means "Terrorist" if you choose.  You can also pretend that no terrorist will ever apply for entrance if you choose.

              I choose not to accept either as being true.

          2. psycheskinner profile image80
            psycheskinnerposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Giuliani already gave an interview on how he helped Trump make a "Muslim" ban that skirted the law.  It is absolutely no secret that the intent of the ban is to target Muslims.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              Guiliani can make whatever claims he wishes.  So can anyone else making "not secret" claims about intent.  They can even claim the order was racist (and have done so multiple times)

              The bottom line is that what the order said is all that counts.  And it applied to every religion, every nationality and every race equally.

              1. Don W profile image83
                Don Wposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                Wrong. Courts can make judgements based on the intent and the effect of such an order.

                As I told you in a different thread, intent can be determined by previous public statements made by Trump and the administration.

                The effect has already been established. Several federal courts of ruled that the order is harmful to plaintiffs, so based on "the balance of harms" have issued temporary injunctions to stop parts of it being enforced. Those orders are being defied by federal agencies like the Customs and Border Protection agency, which is why Virginia has filed a contempt of court motion against Trump(1).

                (1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/vir … cf8b80b621

              2. psycheskinner profile image80
                psycheskinnerposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                Oh come on.  Given that none of the countries targeted are sources of terrorists active in the US, and the method he used is the exact one Guiliani recommended, and it was a campaign promise by Trump... pull the other one.

                If the reason was not to block Muslims then there is no other plausible motivation to it at all except possibly to get some former interpreters and sick infants killed.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  Oh come on.  Given that the Obama administration listed them all as the most dangerous of the countries over there it seems we should pay attention, don't you think?

                  When Trump issues an EO banning only muslims, then you will have reason to think he is banning muslims.  Until then take what his orders say as what he means and don't make up new meanings for them.  To claim that an order banning all people from a geographical area as banning only Muslims is hardly reasonable.

                  1. Oztinato profile image82
                    Oztinatoposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                    It is laughable to see such a hardcore atheist throwing his weight behind Donald who supports right wing religious back woods fundamemtalism.
                    I note with glee your total absence of concern about the backwoods fundamentalism ergo you are supporting it by giving your devotion to Donald. Utterly ridiculous

  3. Shonda Ponder profile image60
    Shonda Ponderposted 3 months ago

    I believe he could have been more specific. His overly broad pen caused unnecessary confusion, but I also believe his heart is in the right place and I agree that we need to do something to curb the tide of illegals and terrorists from entering our country.

    1. psycheskinner profile image80
      psycheskinnerposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      This ban has nothing  to do with illegals at all. 

      You don't get on an international flight without presenting documents for legal entry at the other end.

 
working