Donald Trump should be commended for his Muslim Ban.

[betsy]

2 hours ago, kactus said:

My point is he is an american citizen regardless of where he was born....This is a home grown issue meaning the country he is the resident of as of now..,For all I care he could have been a saudi born muslim in which case your argument for holding those 7 nations banned becomes invalid.

He was described as a Somali computer student who has lived in the USA for 15 years.  This guy is not my argument.  He's just an example I gave to refute what your camp has been saying that there were no terrorist attacks perpetrated by any of those nations in the US soil.

 

There are reasons why those 7 countries were in the list - they were taken from Obama's list (2016). 

 

 

[kactus]

3 minutes ago, betsy said:

He was described as a Somali computer student who has lived in the USA for 15 years.  This guy is not my argument.  He's just an example I gave to refute what your camp has been saying that there were no terrorist attacks perpetrated by any of those nations in the US soil.

 

There are reasons why those 7 countries were in the list - they were taken from Obama's list (2016). 

 

 

He article says he was an american citizen...Regardless of his origin he could have been anybody. It is disinginious to pick up on this guy who happen to be from one of those 7 nations. 

And I do think cherry picking on his identity as a somali to justify Trumps ban on thise 7 contries doesn't prove anything...

[betsy]

16 minutes ago, kactus said:

He article says he was an american citizen...

 

It does not say that.

They identified him as a Somali. His dad said he's Somali.

 

If he's an American citizen, the newspaper wouldn't be saying he's Somali.

Edited February 24, 2017 by betsy

[bush_cheney2004]

4 minutes ago, betsy said:

...If he's an American citizen, the newspaper wouldn't be saying he's Somali.

 

Agreed.    The travel ban critics are desperate to prove that attacks on "U.S. soil" have never come from the flagged seven countries.

 

[betsy]

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Agreed.    The travel ban critics are desperate to prove that attacks on "U.S. soil" have never come from the flagged seven countries.

 

The "gymnastics" they do - trying to twist and turn.

[Michael Hardner]

I've not been following this closely, but didn't you just find a single Somali American as your example ?  It seems a stretch to say the other side does gymnastics when this is the example you're using to justify banning people from 7 countries.

[bush_cheney2004]

Fact checking demonstrates that several individuals from the seven nations have been investigated and arrested for terrorism related activities:

 

Quote

Charles Kurzman, a sociology professor at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, says his research shows no Americans have been killed in the U.S. at the hands of people from the seven countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Yemen — since Sept. 11. But it's not quite right to say no one from those nations has been arrested or accused in an extremist-related plot while living in the U.S.

In addition to the cases from last fall, for instance, two men from Iraq were arrested in Kentucky in 2011 and convicted on charges that they plotted to send money and weapons to al-Qaida.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/cf244d096e084e7a943b45168deafc5f/ap-fact-check-no-arrests-7-nations-travel-ban-nope

 

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Fact checking demonstrates that several individuals from the seven nations have been investigated and arrested for terrorism related activities:

Ok, thanks for the clarification then.  I think they said they would be adding countries to the list also.

[BubberMiley]

1 hour ago, betsy said:

 

That's up to the leader of a country - in this case, Trump -  to decide which country he wants to ban.  I support the right of a nation to protect herself and her citizens, the way she deems necessary.

That isn't in jeopardy, nor was it the question. The U.S. has demonstrated its ability to decide who it wants to let in the country, and even the president can't force his authoritarian will onto it. You don't seem to understand that presidents are not kings. 

The new executive order is rumoured to include Egypt, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Colombia, Venezuela, the Philippines, trans-Sahara (Mali), and Sulu/Sulawesi Seas Littoral.

Edited February 24, 2017 by BubberMiley

[OftenWrong]

12 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

That isn't in jeopardy, nor was it the question. The U.S. has demonstrated its ability to decide who it wants to let in the country, and even the president can't force his authoritarian will onto it. You don't seem to understand that presidents are not kings. 

Your asking whether a country like Philippines should be added to the list, proves that you don't understand the reason why those 7 countries are on the list.

[BubberMiley]

16 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Your asking whether a country like Philippines should be added to the list, proves that you don't understand the reason why those 7 countries are on the list.

I ask because it's rumoured to be added. Your seeming unawareness of this proves you don't follow what's going on very closely

But yeah, I know. Obama made a list of countries he said were a threat. Apparently Trump is adding to it. What's your point? Are you saying nations are exempt if Trump does sufficient business there?

Edited February 24, 2017 by BubberMiley

[OftenWrong]

2 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

I ask because it's rumoured to be added, which proves you don't follow what's going on very closely.

Never heard of it. Since when are rumours "what's going on"? That must be a leftist concept.

Besides, Duterte and Trump would probably get along quite well. Duterte is outspoken, tough on crime, and even called Obama a "Son of a Bitch".
Link

http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2017/02/04/1668947/philippines-not-covered-trump-travel-ban

Perhaps one should follow real news more, and rumours... less?

[BubberMiley]

9 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Never heard of it. Since when are rumours "what's going on"? That must be a leftist concept.

Besides, Duterte and Trump would probably get along quite well. Duterte is outspoken, tough on crime, and even called Obama a "Son of a Bitch"

So I take it then you are opposed to an expansion of the travel ban, since you won't entertain the idea that it might be coming?

[OftenWrong]

2 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

So I take it then you are opposed to an expansion of the travel ban, since you won't entertain the idea that it might be coming?

I could answer that, but instead I must point out again, this is an odd question. I doubt that you understand the rationale behind the proposed travel ban, or why people support it.

It was already US policy under Obama to restrict and target people who were in Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Sudan, at any time on or after March 1, 2011. The decision is made based purely on the country. Thus, all people living in those countries were automatically targeted.

I trust this does not create a sensation of abject horror in you.

[BubberMiley]

7 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

 

I trust this does not create a sensation of abject horror in you.

Not really, though I think it does nothing to improve safety and winds up being counter-productive. It struck me as odd, considering Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia's absence particularly and for the absence of rogue states like the Philippines, which shelters Islamic murderers that have not been brought to justice. I would think that if you are going to ban people, you wouldn't do it so arbitrarily and in such a chaotic fashion.

 

[bush_cheney2004]

29 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

...It was already US policy under Obama to restrict and target people who were in Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Sudan, at any time on or after March 1, 2011. The decision is made based purely on the country. Thus, all people living in those countries were automatically targeted.

 

Indeed...the U.S. already had travel bans on many citizens of many other countries, including many thousands of Canadians, long before Trump showed up. 

[kactus]

7 hours ago, betsy said:

It does not say that.

They identified him as a Somali. His dad said he's Somali.

 

If he's an American citizen, the newspaper wouldn't be saying he's Somali.

 

This is already stated in the very article you posted.....

Quote

Law enforcement officials told NBC News that Artan was a Somali refugee who left his homeland with his family in 2007, lived in Pakistan and then came to the United States in 2014 as a legal permanent resident.

Are you trying to cover bits of the news to make your point?

[betsy]

8 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

That isn't in jeopardy, nor was it the question. The U.S. has demonstrated its ability to decide who it wants to let in the country, and even the president can't force his authoritarian will onto it. You don't seem to understand that presidents are not kings.

I answered the question!

We'll see.  They refer to Code 1183 - the power and authority of a President.  Trump read it out loud at the Florida rally.  The 9th circuit didn't bring that up because it's so obvious that the executive order was constitutional.

They're still going to duke it out - apparently the new executive order is to be put out WHILE they're fighting for the first one!

At least that's what I understand from Spicer's explanation.

 

 

Quote

The new executive order is rumoured to include Egypt, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Colombia, Venezuela, the Philippines, trans-Sahara (Mali), and Sulu/Sulawesi Seas Littoral.

 

Like I've said, I support a nation's right to protect herself the way her leaders deem fit.  Whoever they deem to add in that list, it's fine by me.  Maybe someday....we'll see Canada added to it.

 

Just the idea of an alien demanding to be given the "right" to enter another nation, is ludicrous!  Entry by an alien to another nation isn't a right!  It's a PRIVILEGE!  That's what you don't seem to get!

 

Only the dysfunctional libs/progressives are turning it into a so-called "right" - this is a push for globalisation!  It's a way to knock down borders, and before you know it - you don't have a say in, and about your own country!  You are dictated by something like EU!

 

 

Edited February 24, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

1 hour ago, kactus said:

 

This is already stated in the very article you posted.....

Are you trying to cover bits of the news to make your point?

No, I'm not covering up anything.  You just simply don't understand the difference.

 

You said he was an American citizen.  I said, he's not!  He's Somali!

A permanent resident, is not  an American citizen.  here, read this:

 

Quote

 

The terms “permanent resident” and “U.S. citizen” are often confused with one another. Although both confer rights to live legally in the United States, they mean very different things, as described below.

 

Lawful Permanent Resident

A lawful permanent resident is someone who has been granted the right to live in the United States indefinitely. Permanent residents are given what’s known as a “green card,” which is a photo ID card that proves their status. (But it is no longer a green.)

Permanent residence includes the right to work here and to petition for close family members (your spouse and unmarried children) to receive permanent residence and join you. However, your family members will be considered “preference relatives,” meaning that only a limited number of immigrant visas are available to people in this category per year, and so they are likely to spend five or more years on a waiting list before being allowed to enter or remain in the United States or get a green card.

Permanent residents continue to remain the citizen of another country. So every time you travel outside the United States, you must carry the passport of that country as well as your green card.  You will use your green card to reenter the United States.

 

http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/permanent-resident-vs-citizen-difference.html

 

That's why they refer to him as a Somali!

 

Edited February 24, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

8 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

I ask because it's rumoured to be added. Your seeming unawareness of this proves you don't follow what's going on very closely

 

 

If you follow closely, Duterte had also issued a call to all illegal Filipinos in the USA to come home now.....to not wait to be deported. He said, "illegal, is illegal." 

Duterte is vocal about his support for the USA's right to protect herself!  I bet the PH government will be cooperating with any extreme vetting and screening, after all the Filipinos abroad is one of their great "export" that helps the Philippine economy.  It's only sensible to assume they'd try their hardest to not give any reason to be added to the list.

Furthermore, if you try to see what's being said about such rumours, you'd also find this:

 

 

Quote

 

PH not a 'country of concern,' says US State Dep't

 

The US State Department today clarified that the Philippines has not been marked by US authorities as a "country of concern," which means Filipinos can continue their travels to and from the US, or benefit from residing and working in the United States. 

Last week, US President Donald Trump signed an executive order denying US entry to citizens of seven countries, namely, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. 

 

The order also covers everyone with a visa from these countries, including "green card" holders who left the US and plans to come back. They will undergo scrutiny and might be prohibited from re-entering the US.

US State Department deputy spokesperson Mark Toner said the Philippines is not part of the "countries of concern" they are looking into or would be included further on their list as of this time, allaying fears that US authorities might conduct stringent measures against Filipinos entering the US.

 

http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/02/02/17/ph-not-a-country-of-concern-says-us-state-dept

 

Mind you, "At this time, " is loaded.  Philippines might get added later on, who knows.

Edited February 24, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

9 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I've not been following this closely, but didn't you just find a single Somali American as your example ?  It seems a stretch to say the other side does gymnastics when this is the example you're using to justify banning people from 7 countries.

 

Read again, Michael.  The two Somali terrorists were given as samples, NOT TO JUSTIFY THE BAN.......

 

.......but  TO REFUTE WHAT SOME ANTI-TRUMPS ARE LYING ABOUT - THAT NO ONE FROM ANY OF THOSE COUNTRIES HAD COMMITTED ANY TERRORIST ACTS ON US SOIL!

 

Big difference.

Edited February 24, 2017 by betsy

[kactus]

1 hour ago, betsy said:

No, I'm not covering up anything.  You just simply don't understand the difference.

 

You said he was an American citizen.  I said, he's not!  He's Somali!

A permanent resident, is not  an American citizen.  here, read this:

 

http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/permanent-resident-vs-citizen-difference.html

 

That's why they refer to him as a Somali!

 

You are still missing out the point. Not sure if it's deliberate or naive from your side.... I am not disputing that he is of Somali origin. That is not my point of contention. The point is and remains that he is a US citizen and this issue is domestic to US homeland security. Like I said he could have been a Pakistani, a Saudi, a jew or an indian. This has nothing to do with the country of origin but being selective in your argument to expose people from those 7 countries...

[betsy]

20 minutes ago, kactus said:

You are still missing out the point. Not sure if it's deliberate or naive from your side.... I am not disputing that he is of Somali origin. That is not my point of contention. The point is and remains that he is a US citizen and this issue is domestic to US homeland security. Like I said he could have been a Pakistani, a Saudi, a jew or an indian. This has nothing to do with the country of origin but being selective in your argument to expose people from those 7 countries...

Read my post:

 

He. Is. Not. An. American Citizen.

 

He has a green card (permanent resident status), but he is a Somalian.  He is not an American.

 

You're being obtuse.  Or maybe, you have not understood what was explained to you.  Better go back and read it again.

  There's no point in arguing with you.

Edited February 24, 2017 by betsy

[?Impact]

2 hours ago, betsy said:

Whoever they deem to add in that list, it's fine by me.  Maybe someday....we'll see Canada added to it.

Yes, any nation but Saudi Arabia - the one country that was most responsible for terrorist acts. Oil money speaks louder than truth.

1 hour ago, betsy said:

He. Is. Not. An. American Citizen.

He has a green card (permanent resident status), but he is a Somalian.  He is not an American.

Are you still going on about Dahir Adan? He became an American Citizen in 2008. The Somali community denounced his act. Stop pretending this was an attack by Somalia, it was a homegrown attack - period, end of discussion.

Edited February 24, 2017 by ?Impact

[kactus]

1 hour ago, betsy said:

Read my post:

 

He. Is. Not. An. American Citizen.

 

He has a green card (permanent resident status), but he is a Somalian.  He is not an American.

 

You're being obtuse.  Or maybe, you have not understood what was explained to you.  Better go back and read it again.

  There's no point in arguing with you.

You call this arguing?

That's blatantly massaging the words to suit your argument for banning a country.

Permanent resudent or the US citizen this guy has valid status to stay, work and bring a spouse. The fact that he may have a green card indicates that he is waiting fir his citizenship. It is semantic. What you are oblivious to or don't seem to grasp is that if that terror suspect was a saudi or someone that is not part of those 7 countries it wouldn't get so much news...Be it for what it is you are trying to punish a country for the action of a somali born US permanent resident. He is rhe US subject and the country he was born is irrelevant. For all I care the guy may have mental issues like any other american. Be it black, white, yellow, brown or hell even an orange tanned man.