President Donald Trump's executive immigration order

[T-72M1]

 

[Solomon2]

A US judge has issued a temporary halt to the deportation of visa holders or refugees stranded at airports following President Trump's executive order -

President Trump's Immigration Ban is Magnificently Right

BY DAVID P. GOLDMAN JANUARY 28, 2017

President Trump kicked over a hornet's nest by imposing a 90-day ban on immigration from selected Muslim countries in keeping with his campaign pledges. Andrew McCarthy, the federal prosecutor who convicted the blind sheikh and his accomplices of the first World Trade Center bombing, explains why the ban is legal--despite a federal judge's restraining order against implementation of the order. I'll leave it to the legal experts to explain why this is yet another outrageous abuse of power by the judiciary.

The legal issues will be sorted out soon enough. It's the right policy, despite liberal whining and some conservative complaints.

The liberals claim that the immigration halt will convince Muslims that the U.S. administration isn't fighting ISIS and other terrorists, but Muslims as a religious group. Some conservatives, e.g. Walter Russell Mead, call it "callous." The latter characterization is misleading. It is callous towards individual Muslims but merciful to American citizens, who have the right to go about their business without fear of mass terrorist attacks. In Europe, the elites accept a certain level of terrorism as the cost of doing business, and the people grudgingly accept it. Americans don't see why they should sacrifice their safety or sense of security to accommodate the hurt feelings of other people. Prof. Mead compares this to America's refusal to accept Jewish immigrants during the Holocaust. I respect Mead, but I find the comparison offensive: How many Jewish refugees from Hitler murdered civilians at random (the answer is, not one)?

As for the argument that the measure will alienate Muslims, precisely the opposite is true. Many Muslim governments, institutions, and individuals do not actively support terrorism, but tolerate it. Active terrorists are a small minority, but they swim in a sea of broader Muslim opinion that sympathizes with terrorists like Hamas in Gaza or Hezbollah in Lebanon.



The last time the Pew Institute surveyed Muslim opinion about Hezbollah and Hamas (in 2010), it found majorities or very large minorities in support of these terrorists in most of the largest Muslim countries. In the United States, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)--founded by the pro-Hamas Islamic Association for Palestine--routinely denounces acts of terror on American soil, but has never once criticized Hamas terrorism in the Middle East.

The Obama administration and the Bush administration hoped to persuade Islamist extremists like the Muslim Brotherhood (of which Hamas is the Palestinian branch) to change their spots and turn peaceful. That didn't work.

The alternative is to serve notice on Muslim governments: If they don't crack down on terrorists and their supporters, we won't let their citizens into the United States until we find ways to vet entrants ourselves.

The terrorists have been winning the intelligence war because a very large number of Muslims fear the terrorists more than they do the counterterrorism efforts of the United States and other Western governments. The terrorists infest Muslim communities and operate like a gangland protection racket. It is dangerous to stand up to them. This will change when Muslims fear the U.S. government more than they fear the terrorists.

Is that cruel? Of course. The world is cruel, but its cruelty is not of our making. The first duty of the U.S. government is to show kindness to prospective American victims of terrorism. And it's great to have a president with the guts to do something about it.

 

[T-72M1]

There is astonishing similarity with whats happening in America with Trump - Bannon and in India Modi - Doval. Here is Bannon talking about creating Akhand America using far right Christians.

https://twitter.com/x/status/825622046453424129

India and the US are two completely different people, societies/cultures and countries but I do see a few parallels in the political scene. Amit Shah is probably closer to Bannon in that role than Doval.

this thread is to do with US politics and Trump's immigration thing, but you can find a couple of interesting bits about Indian politics here and here.

 

[EgyptianAmerican]

President Trump's Immigration Ban is Magnificently Right

BY DAVID P. GOLDMAN JANUARY 28, 2017

President Trump kicked over a hornet's nest by imposing a 90-day ban on immigration from selected Muslim countries in keeping with his campaign pledges. Andrew McCarthy, the federal prosecutor who convicted the blind sheikh and his accomplices of the first World Trade Center bombing, explains why the ban is legal--despite a federal judge's restraining order against implementation of the order. I'll leave it to the legal experts to explain why this is yet another outrageous abuse of power by the judiciary.

The legal issues will be sorted out soon enough. It's the right policy, despite liberal whining and some conservative complaints.

The liberals claim that the immigration halt will convince Muslims that the U.S. administration isn't fighting ISIS and other terrorists, but Muslims as a religious group. Some conservatives, e.g. Walter Russell Mead, call it "callous." The latter characterization is misleading. It is callous towards individual Muslims but merciful to American citizens, who have the right to go about their business without fear of mass terrorist attacks. In Europe, the elites accept a certain level of terrorism as the cost of doing business, and the people grudgingly accept it. Americans don't see why they should sacrifice their safety or sense of security to accommodate the hurt feelings of other people. Prof. Mead compares this to America's refusal to accept Jewish immigrants during the Holocaust. I respect Mead, but I find the comparison offensive: How many Jewish refugees from Hitler murdered civilians at random (the answer is, not one)?

As for the argument that the measure will alienate Muslims, precisely the opposite is true. Many Muslim governments, institutions, and individuals do not actively support terrorism, but tolerate it. Active terrorists are a small minority, but they swim in a sea of broader Muslim opinion that sympathizes with terrorists like Hamas in Gaza or Hezbollah in Lebanon.



The last time the Pew Institute surveyed Muslim opinion about Hezbollah and Hamas (in 2010), it found majorities or very large minorities in support of these terrorists in most of the largest Muslim countries. In the United States, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)--founded by the pro-Hamas Islamic Association for Palestine--routinely denounces acts of terror on American soil, but has never once criticized Hamas terrorism in the Middle East.

The Obama administration and the Bush administration hoped to persuade Islamist extremists like the Muslim Brotherhood (of which Hamas is the Palestinian branch) to change their spots and turn peaceful. That didn't work.

The alternative is to serve notice on Muslim governments: If they don't crack down on terrorists and their supporters, we won't let their citizens into the United States until we find ways to vet entrants ourselves.

The terrorists have been winning the intelligence war because a very large number of Muslims fear the terrorists more than they do the counterterrorism efforts of the United States and other Western governments. The terrorists infest Muslim communities and operate like a gangland protection racket. It is dangerous to stand up to them. This will change when Muslims fear the U.S. government more than they fear the terrorists.

Is that cruel? Of course. The world is cruel, but its cruelty is not of our making. The first duty of the U.S. government is to show kindness to prospective American victims of terrorism. And it's great to have a president with the guts to do something about it.

WOW how stupid do you have to be to believe this bullshit?

 

[Solomon2]

WOW how stupid do you have to be to believe this bullshit?

What part are you referring to? Is it the part about how Pakistanis are less likely to support extremists than Muslims in other countries? Is that what you are calling "bullsh-t"?

 

[EgyptianAmerican]

What part are you referring to? Is it the part about how Pakistanis are less likely to support extremists than Muslims in other countries? Is that what you are calling "bullsh-t"?

The latter characterization is misleading. It is callous towards individual Muslims but merciful to American citizens, who have the right to go about their business without fear of mass terrorist attacks.

In Europe, the elites accept a certain level of terrorism as the cost of doing business, and the people grudgingly accept it. Americans don't see why they should sacrifice their safety or sense of security to accommodate the hurt feelings of other people.

As for the argument that the measure will alienate Muslims, precisely the opposite is true. Many Muslim governments, institutions, and individuals do not actively support terrorism, but tolerate it. Active terrorists are a small minority, but they swim in a sea of broader Muslim opinion that sympathizes with terrorists like Hamas in Gaza or Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The alternative is to serve notice on Muslim governments: If they don't crack down on terrorists and their supporters, we won't let their citizens into the United States until we find ways to vet entrants ourselves.

The terrorists have been winning the intelligence war because a very large number of Muslims fear the terrorists more than they do the counterterrorism efforts of the United States and other Western governments. The terrorists infest Muslim communities and operate like a gangland protection racket. It is dangerous to stand up to them. This will change when Muslims fear the U.S. government more than they fear the terrorists.

You never mentioned Pakistanis. Are you illiterate?

 

[Solomon2]

You never mentioned Pakistanis. Are you illiterate?

Of course I'm illiterate! That's why I provided a TABLE!

 

[Nilgiri]

Oh the larger conversation is this thread, cool. Let me join it:

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/0...rary-ban-on-immigrants-from-terrorist-havens/

 

[TooRave]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1457073920969523

Despite nationwide protests and several major Republican figures speaking out against President Trump’s controversial travel ban, a new poll has revealed that more Americans actually support the ban than oppose it.
A Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Tuesday found that 49 percent of Americans approved of the executive order to ban citizens from seven mostly Muslim countries from entering the US. Forty-one percent disapproved.

Some 53 percent of Democrats said they “strongly disagree” with the decision. They were also more than three times as likely as Republicans to say that the US “should continue to take in immigrants and refugees.”

© Reuters
Meanwhile, 51 percent of Republicans said they “strongly agree” with the ban, and were more than three times as likely to agree that “banning people from Muslim countries is necessary to prevent terrorism.”

Thirty-one percent of respondents said the ban made them feel safer, compared to 26 percent who said it made them feel less safe. Forty-three percent said they “didn’t know.”

Republicans were more likely to say the ban made them feel safer, at 58 percent, while only 10 percent of Democrats felt the same.

Read more
Lawsuits pile up against Trump travel ban and anti-sanctuary city executive orders
When asked whether the US should welcome Christian refugees, but not Muslim ones, 72 percent of Democrats disagreed, compared to 45 percent of Republicans.

And finally, 68 percent of Republicans agreed that the travel ban is setting a “good example” of how to confront terrorism, while 70 percent of Democrats said it’s a bad example.

The poll comes amid worldwide protests of Trump’s executive order, which suspends the admission of citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen for 120 days.

UN human rights experts said on Wednesday that the ban contravenes international law and could have devastating effects for those at risk of facing inhumane treatment in their home countries.

"Such an order is clearly discriminatory based on one’s nationality and leads to increased stigmatization of Muslim communities," the experts said in a statement, as quoted by Reuters.

"Recent US policy on immigration also risks people being returned, without proper individual assessments and asylum procedures, to places in which they risk being subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, in direct contravention of international humanitarian and human rights laws which uphold the principle of non-refoulement," they added.

The ban has also been widely criticized by Democrats, as well as several Republicans, including senators John McCain (AZ) and Lindsey Graham (SC).

“This executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country,” the senators said in a joint statement.

Meanwhile, Trump has denied allegations that the ban targets Muslims because of their faith, but is rather intended to keep people out of the US from countries afflicted by terrorism who could pose a threat.

“This is not about religion,” Trump said in a Friday statement. “This is about terror and keeping our country safe.”

The Reuters/Ispos poll, which was conducted online on January 30-31, surveyed 1,201 people from all 50 states, including 453 Democrats and 478 Republicans. It has a margin of error of three percentage points for the entire sample and five percentage points for Democrats and Republicans.

https://www.rt.com/usa/375923-trump-travel-ban-poll/

 

[YeBeWarned]

Republican Trash .. just like their President

 

[PaklovesTurkiye]

Republican Trash .. just like their President

Definitely, they'll come up with as Putin and Trump are best buddies...So, just helping out their buddy, who is finding himself and leading his country into pure mess...

 

[James-bond]

Welcome to democracy.............. united 50% citizens will decide 100% country wo/men future.Hope we get Trump like figure in India too unlike softy Modi

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

I'm sure most people want to see a ban on refugees. If we really want more people in we should limit it to degreed professionals.

 

[Devil Soul]

US federal judge blocks Trump's travel ban; White House to appeal
Home / World / US federal judge blocks Trump's travel ban; White House to appeal
By REUTERS
February 04, 2017
Latest : World

• 0
• 0

SEATTLE/BOSTON: A Seattle federal judge on Friday put a nationwide block on U.S. President Donald Trump's week-old executive order that had temporarily barred refugees and nationals from seven countries from entering the United States.

The judge's temporary restraining order represents a major setback for Trump's action, though the White House said late Friday that it believed the ban to be "lawful and appropriate" and that the U.S. Department of Justice would file an emergency appeal.

Still, just hours after the ruling, U.S. Customs and Border Protection told airlines they could board travelers who had been affected by the ban.

Trump's Jan. 27 order caused chaos at airports across the United States last week as some citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen were denied entry. Virtually all refugees were also barred, upending the lives of thousands of people who had spent years seeking asylum in the U.S.

The State Department said Friday that almost 60,000 visas were suspended in the wake of Trump's order; it was not clear Friday night whether that suspension was automatically revoked or what travelers with such visas might confront at U.S. airports.

While a number of lawsuits have been filed over Trump's action, the Washington state lawsuit was the first to test the broad constitutionality of the executive order. Judge James Robart, a George W. Bush appointee, explicitly made his ruling apply across the country, while other judges facing similar cases have so far issued orders concerning only specific individuals.

The challenge in Seattle was brought by the state of Washington and later joined by the state of Minnesota. The judge ruled that the states have legal standing to sue, which could help Democratic attorneys general take on Trump in court on issues beyond immigration.

Washington's case was based on claims that the state had suffered harm from the travel ban, for example students and faculty at state-funded universities being stranded overseas. Amazon.com and Expedia, both based in Washington state, had supported the lawsuit, asserting that the travel restrictions harmed their businesses.

Tech companies, which rely on talent from around the world, have been increasingly outspoken in their opposition to the Trump administration's anti-immigrant policies.

Judge Robart probed a Justice Department lawyer on what he called the "litany of harms” suffered by Washington state’s universities, and also questioned the administration's use of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States as a justification for the ban.

Robart said no attacks had been carried out on U.S. soil by individuals from the seven countries affected by the travel ban since that assault. For Trump’s order to be constitutional, Robart said, it had to be “based in fact, as opposed to fiction.”

"OUTRAGEOUS ORDER"

The White House said it would file an appeal as soon as possible.

“At the earliest possible time, the Department of Justice intends to file an emergency stay of this outrageous order and defend the executive order of the president, which we believe is lawful and appropriate,” the White House said in a statement.

"The president’s order is intended to protect the homeland and he has the constitutional authority and responsibility to protect the American people."

Washington Governor Jay Inslee celebrated the decision as a victory for the state, adding: "No person - not even the president - is above the law."

The judge's decision was welcomed by groups protesting the ban.

“This order demonstrates that federal judges throughout the country are seeing the serious constitutional problems with this order,” said Nicholas Espiritu, a staff attorney at the National Immigration Law Center.

Eric Ferrero, Amnesty International USA spokesman, lauded the short-term relief provided by the order but added: "Congress must step in and block this unlawful ban for good."

But the fluid legal situation was illustrated by the fact that Robart's ruling came just hours after a federal judge in Boston declined to extend a temporary restraining order allowing some immigrants into the United States from countries affected by Trump's three-month ban.

A Reuters poll earlier this week indicated that the immigration ban has popular support, with 49 percent of Americans agreeing with the order and 41 percent disagreeing. Some 53 percent of Democrats said they "strongly disagree" with Trump's action while 51 percent of Republicans said they "strongly agree."

At least one company, the ride-hailing giant Uber, was moving quickly Friday night to take advantage of the ruling.

CEO Travis Kalanick, who quit Trump's business advisory council this week in the face of a fierce backlash from Uber customers and the company's many immigrant drivers, said on Twitter: "We have a team of in-house attorneys who’ve been working night & day to get U.S. resident drivers & stranded families back into country.

"I just chatted with our head of litigation Angela, who’s buying a whole bunch of airline tickets ASAP!! #homecoming #fingerscrossed"

FOUR STATES IN COURT

The decision in Washington state came at the end of a day of furious legal activity around the country over the immigration ban. The Trump administration has justified its actions on national security grounds, but opponents have labeled it an unconstitutional order targeting people based on religious beliefs.

In Boston, U.S. District Judge Nathan Gorton expressed skepticism during oral arguments about a civil rights group's claim that Trump's order represented religious discrimination, before declining to extend the restraining order.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia, ordered the federal government to give the state a list by Thursday of "all persons who have been denied entry to or removed from the United States."

The state of Hawaii on Friday also filed a lawsuit alleging that the order is unconstitutional and asking the court to block the order across the country.

 

[YeBeWarned]

That is why US still have Hope ..