TexasCHLforum.com

"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."

Right near the beginning of the Executive Order. Most people will not read it. Most will just allow the biased press to read it for them.

Any one object to this? Not me.

Let us not forget.
http://www.history.com/topics/9-11-atta ... 1-timeline

mojo84 wrote:I think people are very familiar with the history of immigration in our country. I also know Obama's position on immigration and that he has a history of disregarding laws.

Trump is trying to make sure the laws are followed going forward. That's what this is all about. Think about how many have over stayed their visas and such.

For the record, I am 100% for legal immigration for those that want to come legally and contribute to society.

So back when I was 21, I wanted to move to Australia. I applied and gues what? "We don't need/want you." No degree or job sponsorship NO ENTRY.
Should I have thrown a fit, stomped my feet, cry and sue???
Sounds VERY LIBERAL.... HUH....

dale blanker wrote:

Beiruty wrote:The stupidity that I see is that Iraq since the 2003 war and after the installed government. Iraq was supposedly a friend of USA. How come no one can travel from Iraq to US. What about those soldiers still there. What about Iraqi Government officials or bushmen working on the behalf of the Iraqi government. ? So, what if Iraq denied entry for any US citizen? What about the Kurdish territories? They are still part of country Iraq till date.

That is nothing compared that the measure is unconstitutional as there is a due process to be followed for each individual case.

Yes, the whole immigration thing seems to ignore history (where have the real threats come from?) and how (what exceptions if any) and logic (what harm might be caused). I fear that the president is so anxious to fulfill campaign promises that not enough thought is being given. There seems to be too much emphasis on speed and photo-ops.

Sounds like a quote straight from CNN. And yes, he is anxious to fulfill campaign promises. Isn't that a good thing when a man actually does what he promised? That certainly was not done in the last Administration. Vetting is good for the country, do you not agree? Photo-ops, LOL.

dale blanker wrote: Yes, the whole immigration thing seems to ignore history (where have the real threats come from?) and how (what exceptions if any) and logic (what harm might be caused). I fear that the president is so anxious to fulfill campaign promises that not enough thought is being given. There seems to be too much emphasis on speed and photo-ops.

Really Dale? Ignores history? Do you simply make-up your own history? Where was your faux indignation when Barack Hussein Obama banned Iraqi refugees for six months back in 2011?

I call "applesauce"!

Those that have confidence in the government vetting process may want to take a look at this.

https://homeland.house.gov/press/nation ... e-vetting/

The testimonies from the officials in charge does not instill much confidence in me.

rotor wrote:As we debate the poor people of Syria we have to also wonder why the Christian population has to be protected by Assad and the Jewish population has dropped to a believed number of only 9 people. Most of the Jews have left Syria years ago and I am sure the Christians would like out also. Why are there only 9 Jews in Syria? Perhaps because these wonderful people that we feel so sorry for would kill their Jewish and Christian neighbors if they could. This is not an anti-Muslim post but just speaks to the reality of how non-Muslims have been treated in some Muslim countries.
I have no problem with Trump's ban on certain populations.

Christians have always been protected by minority ruling Assad regime. less than 12% were ruling the other 78%.

Bitter Clinger wrote:

dale blanker wrote: Yes, the whole immigration thing seems to ignore history (where have the real threats come from?) and how (what exceptions if any) and logic (what harm might be caused). I fear that the president is so anxious to fulfill campaign promises that not enough thought is being given. There seems to be too much emphasis on speed and photo-ops.

Really Dale? Ignores history? Do you simply make-up your own history? Where was your faux indignation when Barack Hussein Obama banned Iraqi refugees for six months back in 2011?

I call "applesauce"!

You're ignoring the history where it has shown the problems are coming from. None of the currently banned countries have provided terriorists to America.

The State Department in 2011 stopped processing Iraq refugee requests for six months after the Federal Bureau of Investigation uncovered evidence that several dozen terrorists from Iraq had infiltrated the United States via the refugee program.

dale blanker wrote:

Bitter Clinger wrote:

dale blanker wrote: Yes, the whole immigration thing seems to ignore history (where have the real threats come from?) and how (what exceptions if any) and logic (what harm might be caused). I fear that the president is so anxious to fulfill campaign promises that not enough thought is being given. There seems to be too much emphasis on speed and photo-ops.

Really Dale? Ignores history? Do you simply make-up your own history? Where was your faux indignation when Barack Hussein Obama banned Iraqi refugees for six months back in 2011?

I call "applesauce"!

You're ignoring the history where it has shown the problems are coming from. None of the currently banned countries have provided terriorists to America.

The State Department in 2011 stopped processing Iraq refugee requests for six months after the Federal Bureau of Investigation uncovered evidence that several dozen terrorists from Iraq had infiltrated the United States via the refugee program.

Then why did Obama identify most of them as being a danger?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/ ... countries/

If anything, he didn't include enough countries.

As far as your erroneous liberal talking point I bolded, I'm not so sure it is accurate. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... 1-countri/

dale blanker wrote:

Bitter Clinger wrote:

dale blanker wrote: Yes, the whole immigration thing seems to ignore history (where have the real threats come from?) and how (what exceptions if any) and logic (what harm might be caused). I fear that the president is so anxious to fulfill campaign promises that not enough thought is being given. There seems to be too much emphasis on speed and photo-ops.

Really Dale? Ignores history? Do you simply make-up your own history? Where was your faux indignation when Barack Hussein Obama banned Iraqi refugees for six months back in 2011?

I call "applesauce"!

You're ignoring the history where it has shown the problems are coming from. None of the currently banned countries have provided terriorists to America.

The State Department in 2011 stopped processing Iraq refugee requests for six months after the Federal Bureau of Investigation uncovered evidence that several dozen terrorists from Iraq had infiltrated the United States via the refugee program.

Dale,

Save your liberal tears to water the tree that shaded this weed and allowed it to grow. This was caused by Obama and the latest - and currently ONLY - intel we have comes from that failed administration. We have no ability to vet people coming from those countries because of the turmoil left in the wake of Obama's failed policy, one that included sacrificing the lives of 4 Americans in Benghazi to cover up Hussein's illegal gun running to ISIS in Syria.

The ban simply exists to stop terrorists, and the handful of individuals inconvenienced at airports pales next to the thousands of innocent souls who perished, often slowly and painfully at the hands of ISIS, aided and abetted by your President Obama.

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are not on the list because we can obtain useful Intel from those countries, mainly because Obama spent 300 days golfing when he could have destroyed their government and infrastructure as well, had he just meddled. If you pay attention you will also recognize that the Saudi ruling family appears to be ongoing a positive sea change, and they may no longer be the Wahabi-est sponsor they were a decade earlier - but the jury is still out.

You are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled, along with Fauxcahontas Elizabeth Warren, to your own Constitution.

President Trump tweeted a few minutes ago that he will name his Supreme Court nominee to fill Scalia's vacancy at 19:00 tomorrow, in prime time.

Beiruty wrote:

rotor wrote:As we debate the poor people of Syria we have to also wonder why the Christian population has to be protected by Assad and the Jewish population has dropped to a believed number of only 9 people. Most of the Jews have left Syria years ago and I am sure the Christians would like out also. Why are there only 9 Jews in Syria? Perhaps because these wonderful people that we feel so sorry for would kill their Jewish and Christian neighbors if they could. This is not an anti-Muslim post but just speaks to the reality of how non-Muslims have been treated in some Muslim countries.
I have no problem with Trump's ban on certain populations.

Christians have always been protected by minority ruling Assad regime. less than 12% were ruling the other 78%.

Wonder why previous true fascist regime was working so hard to help the "rebels" overthrow one leader who has been protecting Syrian Christians....

TreyHouston wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I think people are very familiar with the history of immigration in our country. I also know Obama's position on immigration and that he has a history of disregarding laws.

Trump is trying to make sure the laws are followed going forward. That's what this is all about. Think about how many have over stayed their visas and such.

For the record, I am 100% for legal immigration for those that want to come legally and contribute to society.

So back when I was 21, I wanted to move to Australia. I applied and gues what? "We don't need/want you." No degree or job sponsorship NO ENTRY.
Should I have thrown a fit, stomped my feet, cry and sue???
Sounds VERY LIBERAL.... HUH....

The parents of a friend wanted to retire in Australia. They were really serious about it. They were really upset when they were denied anything but short visits. Just think a country the size of the Continental US with 36 million people and it is only 1000 miles from a country of 1.3 billion. Do you think they have open borders like the Trump protestors want? Are they racist? Do they restrict Chinese immigration? You bet? Most young Australians and now New Zealanders now cannot afford to buy a home in the big cities. Chinese investors have raised the prices of homes beyond what most people can afford. Houses that face Sydney harbor are priced at one million dollars a window facing the harbor. Just let that sink in for a moment.

Americans have no idea that a lot of the rest of the world does not allow unfettered immigration. I tried and gave up on a plan to get a tourist visa to Russia for just two days - two days. Any one notice Russia does not suffer from the same problems Europe is having with immigration.

That's a good point about other countries' immigration policies.

One thing I wish would get changed: We need to have passport control to LEAVE this country, not just for entering.

I travel the world over, on a regular basis. I often have ~30 international trips per year. Some are great locations: Singapore, Thailand, Oman, Italy; and others remind you of every Jason Bourne movie you've ever seen: Kazakhstan, Russia, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Nigeria.

One thing that EVERY one of these countries has in common is that you need to check in with immigration and customs whether you're coming or going. That way, they make sure that a person who is in-country temporarily actually leaves when they are supposed to. If that person doesn't leave, at least they're on a list somewhere of people who've overstayed and are subject to removal (or worse).

The US has no idea who overstays their visa, because there is no mechanism for checking when someone leaves. I hope President Trump can implement this at all our international points of entry / exit.