AWRM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Trump orders temporary ban on refugees #160095
01/25/2017 03:48 AM
01/25/2017 03:48 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Offline OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Offline OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
Trump expected to order temporary ban on refugees


By Julia Edwards Ainsley
Reuters January 25, 2017

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump is expected to sign executive orders starting on Wednesday that include a temporary ban on most refugees and a suspension of visas for citizens of Syria and six other Middle Eastern and African countries, say congressional aides and immigration experts briefed on the matter.

Trump, who tweeted that a "big day" was planned on national security on Wednesday, is expected to ban for several months the entry of refugees into the United States, except for religious minorities escaping persecution, until more aggressive vetting is in place.

Another order will block visas being issued to anyone from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, said the aides and experts, who asked not to be identified.

In his tweet late on Tuesday, Trump said: "Big day planned on NATIONAL SECURITY tomorrow. Among many other things, we will build the wall!"

The border security measures probably include directing the construction of a border wall with Mexico and other actions to cut the number of illegal immigrants living in the United States.

The sources say the first of the orders will be signed on Wednesday. With Trump considering measures to tighten border security, he could turn his attention to the refugee issue later this week.

Stephen Legomsky, who was chief counsel at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Obama administration, said the president had the authority to limit refugee admissions and the issuance of visas to specific countries if the administration determined it was in the public’s interest.

"From a legal standpoint, it would be exactly within his legal rights," said Legomsky, a professor at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis. "But from a policy standpoint, it would be terrible idea because there is such an urgent humanitarian need right now for refugees.”

The Republican president, who took office last Friday, was expected to sign the first of the orders at the Department of Homeland Security, whose responsibilities include immigration and border security.

On the campaign trail, Trump initially proposed a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States, which he said would protect Americans from jihadist attacks.

Both Trump and his nominee for attorney general, Senator Jeff Sessions, have since said they would focus the restrictions on countries whose migrants could pose a threat, rather than a ban on those of a specific religion.

Many Trump supporters decried former President Barack Obama's decision to increase the number of Syrian refugees admitted to the United States over fears that those fleeing the country's civil war would carry out attacks.

LEGAL CHALLENGES POSSIBLE

Detractors could launch legal challenges if all the countries subject to the ban are Muslim-majority nations, said immigration expert Hiroshi Motomura at UCLA School of Law.

Legal arguments could claim the executive orders discriminate against a particular religion, which would be unconstitutional, he said.

"His comments during the campaign and a number of people on his team focused very much on religion as the target," Motomura said.

To block entry from the designated countries, Trump is likely to tell the State Department to stop issuing visas to people from those nations, according to sources familiar with the visa process. He could also instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to stop any current visa holders from those countries from entering the United States.

White House spokesman Sean Spicer said on Tuesday the State and Homeland Security Departments would work on the vetting process once Trump's nominee to head the State Department, Rex Tillerson, is installed.

Other measures may include directing all agencies to finish work on a biometric identification system for non-citizens entering and exiting the United States and a crackdown on immigrants fraudulently receiving government benefits, according to the congressional aides and immigration experts.

To restrict illegal immigration, Trump has promised to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border and to deport illegal migrants living inside the United States.

Trump is also expected to take part in a ceremony installing his new secretary of homeland security, retired Marine General John Kelly, on Wednesday.

AUSTRALIA DEAL UNDER THREAT

Trump's executive order threatens a refugee resettlement deal with Australia signed late last year, and could leave more than 1,000 asylum seekers in limbo.

The U.S. agreed to resettle an unspecified number of refugees being held in Papua New Guinea (PNG) and the tiny South Pacific island nation of Nauru on Australia’s behalf, under a deal to be administered by the U.N. refugee agency.

"Any substantial delay in the relocation of refugees...would be highly concerning from a humanitarian perspective," Catherine Stubberfield, a spokeswoman of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, told Reuters by email.

"These men, women and children can no longer afford to wait."

The deal followed agreement by Australia in September to join a U.S.-led program to resettle refugees from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador as part of its annual intake.

Australia's tough border security laws mandate that asylum seekers intercepted trying to reach the country by boat go for processing to detention camps on PNG's Manus island and Nauru.

Australia does not provide information on the nationalities of those held, but around a third of the 1,161 detainees were from countries covered by the executive orders, lawyers and refugee workers for the asylum seekers told Reuters.

"We already didn't have much hope the U.S. would accept us," Behrouz Boochani, an Iranian refugee who has spent more than three years on Manus island, told Reuters.

"If they do not take us, Australia will have to."

A spokeswoman for Australia's Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull declined to comment.

(Reporting by Julia Edwards Ainsley; Additional reporting by Mica Rosenberg; Additional reporting by Colin Packham in Sydney; Editing by Leslie Adler and Clarence Fernandez)


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Trump orders temporary ban on refugees #160096
01/25/2017 03:59 AM
01/25/2017 03:59 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Offline OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Offline OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
Trump's migrant crackdown: The President will start building Mexico border wall TODAY -and is set to BAN people from Syria and six other 'dangerous' Muslim countries from entering America by signing executive orders

Trump is set to sign executive order enacting his campaign pledge to build a wall along the American border with Mexico
Other executive orders are expected to temporarily close US borders to most refugees
One order reportedly will block visas from being issued to citizens of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen
Restrictions likely to include months-long ban on admissions from all countries until government agencies can boost intensity of vetting process
During presidential campaign, Trump promised to issue temporary ban on Muslims entering the US

By Ariel Zilber For Dailymail.com and Reuters and Associated Press

President Donald Trump will start rolling out executive actions on immigration Wednesday - beginning with an order to start building his wall along the border with Mexico.

The president is also expected to take action over the next few days to temporarily ban immigration from Muslim countries deemed a 'threat to national security' - namely Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Sudan, and Somalia.

In addition, Trump is set to sign other domestic immigration enforcement measures that will include targeting sanctuary cities that decline to prosecute undocumented aliens.

Another key policy shift being discussed is whether to scrap rules protecting hundreds of thousands of children of illegal immigrants from deportation.

In total over the next few days, Trump is expected to:

Direct federal funds toward the construction of a wall along the southern border
Target so-called 'sanctuary' cities that decline to prosecute undocumented aliens

Measures still being finalized and subject to change include:

A four-month freeze on admission of all refugees
Grant exceptions to Christians and other minorities fleeing Muslim persecution
Halt visas to people from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen because the Muslim-majority countries are 'terror prone'
The visa bans would last at least 30 days while vetting processes are reviewed
Stop protecting illegal immigrants who arrived in the US as children from deportation

The Donald will get started with an executive order authorizing the wall on Wednesday, while the immigration bans are still being finalized and could come later in the week.

The president posted a tweet on Tuesday evening signaling that major announcements were in the offing.

'Big day planned on NATIONAL SECURITY tomorrow,' Trump tweeted. 'Among many other things, we will build the wall!'

The new Trump directives are expected to stop most refugees including those from Syria coming to America while vetting processes are reviewed. This could last for four months, or an indefinite amount of time.

The one exception is religious minorities fleeing persecution - which would apply to Christians fleeing Syria and other Muslim majority countries, according to several congressional aides and immigration experts briefed on the matter.

The proposed plans also temporary visa ban on all people entering from some Muslim majority countries that pose a perceived terror risk - Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Somalia and Sudan. This would last at least 30 days.

In addition the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) - which has shielded illegal immigrant children from deportation by granting them work permits - could be axed after Trump vowed to do so during his campaign, according to the Washington Post.
RECORD NUMBER OF MUSLIM REFUGEES FLED TO THE US IN 2016

The US government permitted 38,901 Muslim refugees to enter the country in 2016, nearly half of the total number of refugees it permitted into its borders, according to a study by the Pew Research Center.

The figure represents the highest number of Muslim refugees that have been permitted into the US since data on religious affiliation became publicly available in 2002.

It followed increasing escalation in Syria's bloody civil war, as well as continued instability in Iraq and Afghanistan and the collapse of Libya's government.

The US allowed nearly the same number of Christians into the country – 37,521.

Fiscal 2016, which ended on September 30, was the first time in 10 years that the US admitted more Muslims than Christians.

The majority of the Muslim refugees who entered the US last year were from Syria (12,486) and Somalia (9,012).

The rest came from Iraq (7,853), Burma (3,145) - where Muslims are harshly discriminated against - Afghanistan (2,664), and other countries.

The Obama administration aimed to absorb 10,000 Syrian refugees. Instead, it exceeded the goal by 2,486.

The Republican president was expected to sign the orders starting the wall and targeting sanctuary cities today at the Washington headquarters of the Department of Homeland Security, whose responsibilities include immigration and border security.

On the campaign trail, Trump initially proposed a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States to protect Americans from jihadist attacks.

Both Trump and his nominee for attorney general, U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions, have since said they would focus the restrictions on countries whose migrants could pose a threat, rather than placing a ban on people who follow a specific religion.

Many Trump supporters decried Democratic President Barack Obama's decision to increase the number of Syrian refugees admitted to the United States over fears that those fleeing the country's civil war would carry out attacks.

Detractors could launch legal challenges to the moves if all the countries subject to the ban are Muslim-majority nations, said immigration expert Hiroshi Motomura at UCLA School of Law. Legal arguments could claim the executive orders discriminate against a particular religion, which would be unconstitutional, he said.

"His comments during the campaign and a number of people on his team focused very much on religion as the target," Motomura said.

Stephen Legomsky, who was chief counsel at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Obama administration, said the president had the authority to limit refugee admissions and the issuance of visas to specific countries if the administration determined it was in the public’s interest.

'From a legal standpoint, it would be exactly within his legal rights,' said Legomsky, a professor at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis. 'But from a policy standpoint, it would be terrible idea because there is such an urgent humanitarian need right now for refugees.'

To block entry from the designated countries, Trump is likely to instruct the US State Department to stop issuing visas to people from those nations, according to sources familiar with the visa process.

SYRIA

From the outside looking in, Syria appears to be a hornet's nest of terrorist groups and non-state actors.

A number of these organizations have been fighting the forces loyal to President Bashar Assad in a bloody civil war that has cost the lives of an estimated 500,000 people.

They include Islamic State (ISIS), a jihadist group that has also captured swaths of Iraq; Al-Nusra Front, which is also known as Al-Qaeda in Syria; and Jaysh al-Islam, among others, according to Globalo.

Since 1979, the Syrian government has been put on the State Department's list as a state sponsor of terrorism.

It is also known for its support of the Iranian-backed Lebanese Shi'ite movement Hezbollah.

IRAQ

Iraq has been unstable ever since the 2003 invasion of the country by US forces.

The overthrow of Saddam Hussein paved the way for Shi'ite-led governments to take over, though they have failed to bring order to the country.

Organizations like Islamic State, made up primarily of Sunni gunmen, have filled the vacuum and prevented an orderly post-Saddam transition from taking hold.

ISIS has launched dozens of terrorist attacks that have killed thousands.

IRAN

Iran has been designated by the State Department as 'the foremost sponsor of terrorism in 2015, providing a range of support, including financial, training, and equipment, to groups around the world,' according to CNN.

The US says that Iran has given weapons and cash to organizations like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iraqi Shi'ite groups, including Kata'ib Hizballah.

Both organizations are designated as terrorist groups by the State Department.

LIBYA

Libya, the North African nation, has been a powder keg in which terrorist organizations have been fighting for control of the country since the NATO-backed ouster of long-time ruler Muammar Gaddafi in 2011.

The US intelligence community says that jihadist organizations have been strengthening their grip on the country, according to The Washington Times.

ISIS has been particularly active there.

'There are, in addition to ISIL, probably six or eight other terrorist groups that have gathered in Libya,' James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, told Congress in 2015.

'So it's a magnet because, essentially, it's ungoverned.'

SOMALIA

Somalia is widely regarded as a failed state.

It was ranked as the most fragile country in the world by the Fund for Peace in 2016.

Without a functioning central government, the East African country has disintegrated further into civil war.

Its UN-backed government has been at war with Al-Shabab, a group regarded by both the US and the United Kingdom as a terrorist organization, according to the BBC.

Al-Shabab is believed to have between 7,000 and 9,000 gunmen from across the Muslim world.

The organization propagates the austere Wahabi version of Islam whose origins lie in Saudi Arabia.

Al-Shabab has imposed strict clerical rule in areas that it has captured in Somalia, where it has stoned women to death for the crime of adultery and amputated the hands of thieves.

SUDAN

Sudan was placed on the State Department’s list of terrorism sponsors in 1993.

At the time, it was alleged that the government harbored figures like Osama bin Laden in addition to fighters from al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Abu Nidal Organization, and Jamaat al-Islamiyya.

In the late 1990s, however, Sudan showed willingness to cooperate with the West in fighting terrorism.

In May 2004, Sudan was removed from a list of countries that were ‘not fully cooperating’ with American anti-terrorism efforts.

However, the Sudanese government remains on the terror sponsor list due to its support of Hamas, the Palestinian group fighting Israel.

YEMEN

Yemen, one of the most impoverished Arab countries, has been in the grip of a civil war fought between forces loyal to the established government of President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi and the Houthi rebel movement, according to the BBC.

The Houthis are a Shi’ite political movement that took control of the Yemenite capital in 2014.

Since then, regional forces backed by Sunni governments have tried to roll back their progress, while Shi’ite actors like Iran and Hezbollah have given the Houthis support.

Nearly 7,000 people have died and 35,000 have been wounded since the war erupted in March 2015.

Most of the casualties have resulted from air strikes launched by the Saudi-led coalition – which has the backing of the US.

The country has been wracked by violence and chaos, with al Qaeda launching attacks and separatist movements having taken control of the southern part of the country.

He could also instruct US Customs and Border Protection to stop any current visa holders from those countries from entering the United States.

White House spokesman Sean Spicer said on Tuesday that the State and Homeland Security departments would work on the vetting process once Trump's nominee to head the State Department, Rex Tillerson, is installed.

Other measures may include directing all agencies to finish work on a biometric identification system for non-citizens entering and exiting the United States and a crackdown on immigrants fraudulently receiving government benefits, according to the congressional aides and immigration experts.

As president, Trump can use an executive order to halt refugee processing. President George W. Bush used that same power in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Refugee security vetting was reviewed and the process was restarted several months later.

Trump's insistence that Mexico would pay for the wall was among his most popular proposals on the campaign trail, sparking enthusiastic cheers at his raucous rallies.

Mexico has repeatedly said it will not pay for any border wall.

Earlier this month, Trump said the building project would initially be paid for with a congressionally approved spending bill and Mexico will eventually reimburse the US, though he has not specified how he would guarantee payments.

Trump will meet with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto at the White House next week.

In claiming authority to build a wall, Trump may rely on a 2006 law that authorized several hundred miles of fencing along the 2,000-mile frontier.

That bill led to the construction of about 700 miles of various kinds of fencing designed to block both vehicles and pedestrians.

The Secure Fence Act was signed by then-President George W. Bush and the majority of the fencing in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California was built before he left office.

The last remnants were completed after President Barack Obama took office in 2009.

The Trump administration also must adhere to a decades-old border treaty with Mexico that limits where and how structures can be built along the border.

The 1970 treaty requires that structures cannot disrupt the flow of the rivers, which define the US-Mexican border along Texas and 24 miles in Arizona, according to The International Boundary and Water Commission, a joint US-Mexican agency that administers the treaty.

Other executive actions expected Wednesday include bolstering border patrol agents and ending what Republicans have argued is a catch-and-release system at the border.

Currently, some immigrants caught crossing the border illegally are given notices to report back to immigration officials at a later date.

If Trump's actions would result in those caught being immediately jailed, the administration would have to grapple with how to pay for jail space to detain everyone and what to do with children caught crossing the border with their parents.


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Trump orders temporary ban on refugees #160097
01/30/2017 02:49 AM
01/30/2017 02:49 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Offline OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Offline OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
President Trump Signs Executive Order Temporarily Halting All Refugees
refugees

AP

by Michael Patrick Leahy 27 Jan 20170


President Trump signed an executive order late Friday which temporarily bars refugees from entering the United States.

Trump signed the order on refugees while at the Pentagon, minutes after General James Mattis was sworn in as Secretary of Defense by Vice President Mike Pence at a brief ceremony which the president attended.

The executive order, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States,” contained these key elements:

Suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days, prohibiting the arrival of refugees into the United States from any country during that period
Ordered the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to undertake a complete review of the refugee vetting process
Permanently banned Syrian refugees until President Trump determined otherwise, and
Lowered the ceiling of refugees allowed to enter the United States during FY 2017 to 50,000.

Opponents of the federal refugee resettlement program praised Trump’s actions. “This is a great beginning, and much needed,” Ann Corcoran of Refugee Resettlement Watch told Breitbart News.

During the 12 months up to September 30, 2016, the federal government accepted 84,995 refugees in the United States.

In the three months and twenty-seven days since Fiscal Year 2017 began on October 1, 2016, 32,125 refugees have entered the United State

The executive order did however, allow the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security the discretion, on a case by case basis, “to process . . . those refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality,”

The number of refugees granted religious-persecution waivers during the 120 suspension period is likely to be minimal.

Upon the possible resumption of the federal refugee resettlement program on May 27, 120 days from Friday, four months will remain in FY 2017. Slightly more than 4,000 refugees per month, in total 17,875 refugees, would be allowed to enter the United States during the remaining time of FY 2017.

But such a resumption will be contingent upon the judgments of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence “only for nationals of countries for which [they] have jointly determined that such additional procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.”

The order also directed “the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence [to] review the USRAP application and adjudication process to determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additional procedures,” during the 120 day suspension period.

Refugee applicants currently in the pipeline “may be admitted upon the initiation and completion of these revised procedures,” the executive order stated.

In the order, President Trump also “proclaim[ed] that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.”

The Department of Homeland Security on Wednesday announced the suspension of the processing of any refugees overseas currently under consideration for acceptance to the program.

The executive order also included a temporary block on visas for 90 days for “immigrants and non-immigrants” from Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Iran, and Iraq, and specifically directed the Secretary of State to “request all foreign governments that do not supply such information [regarding refugee vetting] to start providing such information regarding their nationals within 60 days of notification.”:

After the 60-day period . . . expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this section until compliance occurs.

Signing the “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States” executive order was one of two executive actions taken by President Trump immediately after he congratulated Mattis.

The other action was the signing of a presidential memorandum, whose purpose, the president said, is “to begin a great rebuilding of the armed services of the United States, developing a plan for new planes, new ships, new resources and new tools for our men and women in uniform.”

“I’m establishing new vetting measures to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States of America,” the President said of the executive order temporarily banning refugees.

“We don’t want them here,” Trump said of terrorists.

“We want to ensure that we are not admitting into our country the very threats our soldiers are fighting overseas,” he said, adding:

We only want to admit those into our country who will support our country and love deeply our people. We will never forget the lessons of 9-11, nor the heroes who have lost their lives at the Pentagon. They were the best of us. We will honor them not only with our words, but with our actions. And that’s what we’re doing today. I am privileged to be here with you, and I promise that our administration will always have your back. We will always be with you.

“Both forms of presidential action have the force of law on the executive branch, and sometimes they seem to be used interchangeably,” USA Today reported on the difference between an executive order and a presidential memorandum:

Executive orders are required by law to be published in the Federal Register, which is sort of the executive counterpart to the Congressional Record. Presidential memoranda may be published or not, depending on the subject. . . .

In 2014, fed up with Obama’s executive orders, Congress required the White House Office of Management and Budget to begin reporting on the cost of executive orders. But Congress neglected to include presidential memoranda, and included them the next year — but only for a memorandum with an estimated regulatory cost of $100 million or more.

The American Civil Liberties Union quickly issued this statement criticizing Trump’s executive order:

‘Extreme vetting’ is just a euphemism for discrimination against Muslims. Identifying specific countries with Muslim majorities and carving out exceptions for minority religions flies in the face of the constitutional principle that bans the government from either favoring or discriminating against particular religions. Any effort to discriminate against Muslims and favor other religions runs afoul of the First Amendment.

The National Partnership for New Americans [NPNA], a left wing pro-refugee and open borders group, also criticized the president’s executive order.

“Refugees are our coworkers, neighbors, friends, business owners, and community leaders. Regardless of where they come from – whether as a refugee or as an undocumented young person – everyone deserves to live with dignity, protected from harm,” Joshua Hoyt, the executive director of the NPNA said. “We oppose Trump’s unjust, un-American, and discriminatory steps to disgrace our history, beliefs, and values,” Hoyt added.


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Trump orders temporary ban on refugees #160098
01/30/2017 03:49 PM
01/30/2017 03:49 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Offline OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Offline OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
‘Focus on ISIS, not starting WWIII’: Trump blasts Senators McCain & Graham

“This executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country."

RT - January 30, 2017

The latest targets of US President Donald Trump’s ire are fellow Republican Senators John McCain & Lindsey Graham, who Trump says should focus on important issues “instead of always looking to start World War III.”

The joint statement of former presidential candidates John McCain & Lindsey Graham is wrong – they are sadly weak on immigration. The two…

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 29, 2017

…Senators should focus their energies on ISIS, illegal immigration and border security instead of always looking to start World War III.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 29, 2017

The president tweeted the rebuke in response to a joint statement by veteran GOP legislators who criticized Trump’s executive order placing a temporary travel ban on seven predominantly Muslim countries. McCain and Graham said the move was hasty and “not properly vetted,” and may ultimately work contrary to the stated goal of improving national security.

“This executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country. That is why we fear this executive order may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security,” the statement said.

The Republican hawks joined the loud chorus of largely left-wing condemnation of the executive order, commonly known as the ‘Muslim ban’ by critics. McCain and Graham have criticized Trump on a number of issues, including his plans to work alongside Russia in fighting terrorism in Iraq and Syria. The senators consider Russia a major threat to America.

I know we're all supposed to love McCain & Graham now but it is true that their policy desires would have started WW3 multiple times by now.

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) January 29, 2017

In addition to accusing McCain and Graham of being warmongers, Trump issued a statement defending his decision to impose the travel ban.

“The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror. To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting,” the statement said.

“This is not about religion – this is about terror and keeping our country safe. There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order. We will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days,” it added.

Critics accuse President Trump of hypocrisy for citing the 9/11 terrorist attacks as an example of what he hopes to prevent with the travel ban. The perpetrators of the plane hijackings were nationals of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Lebanon, but none of the countries were affected by the executive order.


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Trump orders temporary ban on refugees #160099
01/31/2017 03:21 AM
01/31/2017 03:21 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Offline OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Offline OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
The Left Goes All In On Open Borders

“No borders. No nations. Fuck deportations!”

That was the rallying cry of protesters demonstrating at San Francisco International Airport Saturday against President Donald Trump restricting immigration from seven Muslim-majority nations.

#SFO: "No borders, no nations, fuck deportations" pic.twitter.com/pyIADfsr0x

— Dieter Bohn (@backlon) January 29, 2017

All across America, protests have erupted at airports — already notorious centers for human misery — to show disgust for Trump’s executive order, which has earned the false title of a Muslim ban. Whether in New York or in Chicago, demonstrators made it clear that they thought Trump’s move to temporarily block migration from these nations went against American principles and laws.

According to these demonstrators, preventing anyone from coming to this country based on their nation of origin or their religion was prohibited by both the Constitution and “our American values.”

Obviously, there are issues that arise with Trump’s order. Travelers with citizenship in one of the seven banned nations but permanent green cards in the U.S. were detained, which was one of the reasons a New York judge halted the president’s action. That measure may be beyond the original intent of the executive order and the White House has already indicated that they are changing course on stopping green card holders from entering the country.

There’s also the perception that the law unfairly targets an entire religion and bans its adherents from America. However, the order only affects — temporarily to boot — a small percentage of the world’s Muslims and is based on national origin, not religion. In many ways, it’s only an expansion of Barack Obama’s 2011 executive order banning Iraqi refugees from the U.S. for six months over terror concerns.

Shockingly, there were no hysterical airport protests then.

While concerns over green card holders and targeting a religion were aired amid the demonstrations, the San Francisco protesters took it a step further by explicitly calling for open borders, the eradication of the nation-state and, needless to say, the total non-enforcement of immigration law. (On Sunday, they had toned down “fuck deportations” to “stop the deportations.”)

It seems that the West Coast demonstrators were more blunt in expressing the moral thrust of those gathering at America’s transportation hubs. Rather than a squabble over the semantics of immigration law, the guiding principles of the protest apparently see open borders as morally desirable and that no person should be refused entry to the U.S.

The hashtag of this movement is #NoBanNoWall, which isn’t too far away from #NoRestrictionsNoBorder. The inevitable signs lecturing the American public that “No person is illegal” were out in full-force, suggesting everyone has the right to come to this country.

What’s been elevated in these demonstrations in the growing support on the Left for what essentially amounts to open borders — a proposal once only associated with anarchists and fringe libertarians. Now it looks like the hot-new position of woke progressives.

That’s a major change from only a few months ago. During the election, “fact checkers” fell over themselves to wag their fingers at Trump and his supporters for claiming Hillary Clinton backed open borders — even though she gave a whole speech where she declared how she dreamed of an open borders future. Clinton herself at least put up the pretense she cared about immigration and said she was not for open borders.

That pretense appears no longer needed.

The protesters don’t seem to want any restrictions on immigration or enforcement of our present laws. All refugees are welcome. All illegals should be given citizenship. Banning people from this country — unless they’re white racists! — is absolutely wrong. This is the rhetoric emerging from the airport protests and which will likely shape our political discourse over the coming years.

In years past, Democrats and liberals would argue that they believed in strong security measures when it came to immigration. They supported the construction of a border wall in 2006, and agreed to hiring more border security to put an end to illegal immigration in 2013 as a part of the Gang of Eight deal.

Now those measures are equated with fascism in the liberal discourse of 2017.

The Left is now staking the ground that immigration is the core principle of America and newcomers must be welcomed, regardless if they come from a country that is producing a disturbingly high number of jihadis.

The lionization of the airport protests by the media and celebrities only further enshrines open borders as the emerging consensus of the Left. To think otherwise is un-American, apparently. One wonders how “open borders is as American as apple pie” will pair with the leftist notion that America is also based on white supremacy.

Last weekend shows a nation that is drawing very sharp battle lines over the issue of immigration: with one side favoring open borders and the other side wanting immigration significantly curtailed.

The days when the center-right and center-left could dream of “common sense” immigration reform appear to be vanishing amid a cacophony of “no borders, no nations” chants.


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Trump orders temporary ban on refugees #160100
02/05/2017 03:07 AM
02/05/2017 03:07 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Offline OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Offline OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
That travel-ban lifting judge said what?

Claimed in courtroom none arrested from 7 designated countries since 9/11

WASHINGTON – The judge who issued a stay on President Trump’s executive order temporarily barring entry to the U.S. by those from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia erroneously claimed in his courtroom that no person from those countries have been arrested in the U.S. since 9/11.

In a courtroom exchange Friday with Department of Justice lawyer Michelle Bennett, federal Judge James L. Robart, asked, “How many arrests have there been of foreign nationals from those seven countries since 9/11”?

“I don’t know the specific details of attacks or planned attacks,” said Bennett, who is from the Department of Justice’s Civil Division.

“The answer to that is none, as best I can tell,” said the judge.

While Robart was clearly wrong – travelers and immigrants from the seven countries have indeed been involved in the murders of Americans and other heinous crimes – a better answer would have been: No one knows just how many have been arrested because no one has been counting mere arrests.

Here is a partial list of some of the more well-known cases involving persons who traveled from countries on the watchlist:

In October 2009, police arrested an Iraqi Muslim immigrant for running over his 20-year-old daughter to punish her for becoming “too westernized.” His daughter, died of her injuries. The father was sentenced to 34 years in prison.

In November 2009, Nidal Hassan fatally shot fatally shot 13 people and injured more than 30 others at Fort Hood in Texas. While the Army major was an American, he received counseling and encouragement from Yemen-based imam Anwar al-Awlaki, who traveled frequently to the U.S. and was later killed in a drone attack ordered by Barack Obama in Yemen.

In 2011, Rahim Alfetlawi, 47, an Iraqi native living in Minneapolis, shot his step-daughter fatally in the head because she moved away and was becoming to westernized. He was sentenced to life in prison.

On Sept. 17, 2016, Dahir Ahmed Adan, born in Somalia, entered a mall in St. Cloud, Minnesota, dressed as a security guard and began stabbing individuals before an off-duty copy shot and killed him. According to police, Adan asked at least one person if they were a Muslim before attacking them and made statements regarding Allah during the attack. Ten were injured in the stabbing spree, but thankfully none were killed or suffered grave injuries.

In November 2016, Somali refugee Abdul Razak Ali Artan attacked 11 Americans with a knife and then a car on the campus of Ohio State University in Columbus before a campus police officer shot and killed him.

But terrorism experts are scratching their heads trying to figure out the judge’s point.

The Trump administration chose the seven countries for the watch list because they were designated as essentially lawless nations by the Obama administration – those from which terrorists are known to be traveling to evade identification.

Trump’s executive order made this clear: “Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee-resettlement program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.”

In addition, if you look at the volume of major terrorist attacks and gruesome crimes in the U.S. committed by Muslims from other countries besides the seven, there will indeed be many, many more. Does that suggest the judge wants to see a broader watch list than Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan and Somalia?

Others who used these destinations to wreak havoc on Europe over the last two years, where hundreds have been killed in bombings, truck attacks, shootings and stabbings following the continent’s opening to “Syrian refugees,” are, in fact, mostly unknown young men from Muslim countries the world over.

On Saturday, Trump said on Twitter: “What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions, can come into U.S.?” He added that “very bad and dangerous” people may now come into the U.S. because of the judge’s “terrible” ruling.

Earlier, Trump called the judge who issued the temporary restraining order a “so-called judge” and vowed that the order would be “overturned!”

The halt late Friday was issued by U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle, who is an appointee of George W. Bush. He said that Washington state and Minnesota had standing to challenge Trump’s executive order on immigration. So he issued the temporary, nationwide restraining order based on his opinion that the states showed their case is likely to succeed.

Ed Straker, an attorney wo attended law school with Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, says Judge Robart “has clearly usurped his authority.”

“The case clearly has no plaintiffs with standing or any kind of validity,” he wrote in American Thinker. “At most, Judge Robart should have stayed his decision pending appeal to circuit courts. His radical injunction smacks of a judicial coup, of a single federal district judge asserting his authority over the entire executive branch. His arguments for doing so are unconstitutional, as is his manner of issuing the order. We are living in a time when judicial ayatollahs are usurping the power of our elected officials, and it is very much like a judicial coup.”


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Trump orders temporary ban on refugees #160101
02/05/2017 11:46 AM
02/05/2017 11:46 AM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,015
washington
mak9030mag Offline
Senior Member
mak9030mag  Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,015
washington
If one in his position asurpes power that he is given and it is pointed out. Where are thoughs who are to make sure this doesn't happen?
Also it has been shown that thoughs who preach tolerance are quick to use violence when one points out the wrong doings or opposite oppinions.
What I see is this is too much if your face open coup attempts by the collective little red book ideaolgy. For most Americans to face.
Because something like this can't happen in America.


Mak
Re: Trump orders temporary ban on refugees #160102
02/06/2017 04:44 AM
02/06/2017 04:44 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,872
Tulsa
airforce Online content
Administrator
airforce  Online Content
Administrator
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,872
Tulsa
The immigration order could make its way to the Supreme Court as early as today now that the Ninth Circuit has upheld a lower court order that halted the ban.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Re: Trump orders temporary ban on refugees #160103
02/07/2017 07:56 AM
02/07/2017 07:56 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,872
Tulsa
airforce Online content
Administrator
airforce  Online Content
Administrator
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,872
Tulsa
Here is the government\'s brief to the Ninth Circuit. 15 pages. in pdf format.

What caught my eye was the argument that federal courts have no business taking "the extraordinary step of second-guessing a formal national-security judgment made by the President himself pursuant to broad grants of statutory authority."

In fact, courts have routinely done so. The Supreme Court not long ago ruled on Holder v.Humanitarian Law Project[/i] , saying "national security and foreign relations do not warrant abdication of the judicial role."

And in [i]Rasul v. Bush (the case that held non-citizen detainees in Guantanamo had habeas corpus rights), the Court ruled that U.S. federal courts have jurisdiction to review "the legality of Executive detention of aliens in a territory over which the United States exercises plenary and exclusive jurisdiction, but not 'ultimate sovereignty.'"

The Ninth Circuit is expected to rule in the temporary restraining order this week, but I've got five cyber bucks saying it's on a greased highway to the Supreme Court.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Re: Trump orders temporary ban on refugees #160104
02/07/2017 11:02 AM
02/07/2017 11:02 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Offline OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Offline OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
Travel-ban judge makes decision based on whopping lie

1 mainstream-media outlet exposes serious gaffe

02/07/2017 at 9:50 AM

Leo Hohmann

The judge who granted an injunction against President Donald Trump’s temporary ban on travel from seven Muslim-majority countries based his decision on a blatantly inaccurate premise.

Judge James Robart, a federal district judge in Seattle, stated that no one from the seven countries on Trump’s list – Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and Libya – has been arrested on terrorism charges since the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on America.

His comment, made in open court on Friday, went unchallenged in the establishment media all weekend and into Monday, while WND reported it was inaccurate and gave a partial list of terror incidents that have been plotted or carried out by Somali and Iraqi immigrants since 9/11.

Where is Politifact? Where is Snopes? Where are all the other media fact-checkers to correct the mistaken judge?

“Judge Robart no doubt knows the mainstream media is a propaganda arm for the left’s globalist agenda, and so no one would report the falsity of his statement except ‘discredited’ or ‘right-wing’ news outlets,” said Robert Spencer, an Islam expert who blogs for the David Horowitz Freedom Center at JihadWatch.org.

Finally, on Monday afternoon, the Associated Press came out with a fact-check on Robart’s comment, debunking it as patently false.

“WASHINGTON — The federal judge who halted President Donald Trump’s travel ban was wrong in stating that no one from the seven countries targeted in Trump’s order has been arrested for extremism in the United States since the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Just last October, an Iraqi refugee living in Texas pleaded guilty to attempting to provide support to the Islamic State group, accused of taking tactical training and wanting to blow himself up in an act of martyrdom. In November, a Somali refugee injured 11 in a car-and-knife attack at Ohio State University, and he surely would have been arrested had he not been killed by an officer.”

CNN, the New York Times and the major TV networks were silent on the legitimacy of an exchange Friday in federal court between Robart and Justice Department lawyer Michelle Bennett, who was tasked with defending Trump’s executive order.

Robart grilled Bennett, asking if citizens of the seven countries named in the order had been arrested for plots in the U.S. since 9/11. Bennett said she didn’t know.

“The answer to that is none, best I can tell,” Robart said. “You’re here arguing on behalf of someone that says we have to protect the United States from these individuals coming from these countries, and there’s no support for that.”

Congress gives the president wide latitude in foreign affairs, which includes granting visas, Bennett reminded the judge.

But the judge answered: “I’m also asked to look and determine if the executive order is rationally based. And rationally based, to some extent, means I have to find it grounded in fact instead of fiction.”

As it turns out, Robart was the one basing his decision on a fiction.

Trump’s order bars citizens of the seven countries from entering the U.S. for 90 days, all refugees for 120 days and indefinitely halts refugees from Syria.

Robart, a George W. Bush appointee, halted the enforcement of Trump’s order nationwide pending appeals. The case has been appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and is expected to make a fast track to the Supreme Court.

Robart, ruling in a lawsuit brought by the attorneys general of Washington state and Minnesota who sought to stop the order, said the states “have met their burden of demonstrating that they face immediate and irreparable injury as a result of the signing and implementation of the Executive Order.”

He said the order adversely affects residents of the two states in areas of education, employment, education and freedom to travel. Dozens of corporations such as Microsoft, Expedia, Apple, Google, E-Bay, Amazon, Starbucks and others claim to be suffering damages by the executive order. The essence of their claims is that they are suffering economically, which may be the case since these companies benefit from hiring cheap immigrant labor from Muslim countries.

Almost every president since the advent of modern air travel has implemented bans on travel from various nations for various reasons. President Obama enacted a six-month ban on refugees from Iraq in 2011 after it was revealed that two Iraqi Muslims resettled in Bowling Green, Kentucky, were sending weapons and cash to al-Qaida in Iraq. They were arrested, tried, convicted and are serving time, unbeknownst to Judge Robart.

President Jimmy Carter implemented a travel ban on citizens from Iran after the Shah was deposed and students seized the U.S. Embassy in 1979.

Dozens of Somali refugees have been involved in terror plots, including more than 40 of which left the country to join ISIS, al-Shabab or al-Qaida, the FBI has confirmed.

Andrew Luger, the U.S. attorney for Minnesota, even admitted in April 2015 that “We have a terror recruitment problem in Minnesota” involving the Somali refugee community in that state. His comment came at a press conference after six Somali refugees were charged with trying to leave the country to board flights to Turkey, from where they planned to hop across the border to Syria and join ISIS.

The problem got so bad in Minnesota with Somali refugees and their sons being recruited by ISIS that the federal government under Barack Obama approved grants for a pilot program that emphasized teaching Somali youth how not to succumb to the terrorist recruiters by getting involved in soccer or the arts.

As WND pointed out in a story Sunday and the AP acknowledged Monday, Somali refugees also carried out knife attacks against civilians at a mall in St. Cloud, Minnesota, on Sept. 17, injuring 10, and at Ohio State University on Nov. 28, injuring 11.

So Robart either has a short memory, does not read the news, or was deliberately whitewashing the facts in an attempt to strike down Trump’s executive order.

Pamela Geller, editor in chief of the Geller Report and president of American Freedom Defense Initiative, said Robart’s decision, if upheld, smacks directly at the sovereignty of the United States and strips the president of his constitutional authority to protect the nation.

“The media doesn’t care about the truth. It only cares about demonizing Trump. To report Robarts’ lie would interfere with their quest to destroy Trump, Trump’s ban, and the dawn of a new, glorious era in Trump America,” Geller told WND. “The travel ban is legal: it is clearly set out in American law that the president has the right and responsibility to bar people from entering the country for national security reasons.”

She said it is indicative of how “traitorous the left has become that they are so angry and rioting about this.

“And the judges who have blocked the ban are no better. Even those appointed by G.W. Bush represent the failed establishment that is trying desperately to hold on to its power, continue to further the cause of globalist socialist internationalism, and keep the U.S. from defending itself.”

Limbaugh: Robart issued political, not legal opinion

Rush Limbaugh, on his show Monday, said Robart “is not a conservative,” that he was appointed by George W. Bush likely as part of a game of “horse trading” with Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state.

Robart once praised Black Lives Matter in a lawsuit against police in Seattle.

Limbaugh said Robart did not even attempt to decide the case based on legal principles, choosing instead to base his opinion on an assumption about Trump’s motive for implementing a “Muslim ban.”

Limbaugh said:

“When you get right down, this judge does not have the legal power to do what he did, because he is interpreting Trump’s state of mind. If you read the judicial opinion that orders the temporary stay from the judge, this Judge Robart guy in Seattle, he doesn’t even address the law of this! He just addresses typical left-wing touchy-feely things and then presumes to understand the president’s state of mind, and he presumes to understand the president’s prejudices and biases.”

Even constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz — who doesn’t agree with Trump on the temporary travel ban — said in an op-ed for the Toronto Globe and Mail that Trump could have ignored Robart’s decision.

“Trump could have just told the guy to go pound sand, but Dershowitz even said that the president has too much respect for the legal system to openly defy a judge like this, that they’re gonna go through the process of trying to get this stay of his executive order overturned so that it can be re-implemented. It’s not about banning Muslims,” Limbaugh said. “It’s about vetting terrorists. It’s not about religion. This is the thing that… See, the left has been allowed to frame this and characterize this via the protesters and the rioters working in consort with the media.”

Trump supporters are thinking they’ve accomplished a great thing but the protesters and media were a step ahead, Limbaugh said.

“…these people begin protesting within minutes of this executive order. They fill up LAX, they fill up JFK, they make it look like the whole country’s fit to be tied at this and then they mischaracterized it as a ban on Muslims and a bigoted religious ban, and they say America’s never had a religious test,” Limbaugh said. “Which we have, by the way, just not the way you think or the way it sounds. But we’ve always asked refugees their religion when they claim they’re fleeing religious persecution.”

Obama effectively banned Christians from Syria

In fact, President Obama, in league with the United Nations, applied his own religious test on refugees flowing out of Syria. Almost none of the refugees who were Christian or Yazidi were allowed into the United States.
A total of 56 Syrians or 0.5 percent of the more than 17,000 Syrian refugees allowed into the U.S. were Christian while more than 98 percent were Sunni Muslim. Christians make up 10 percent of the Syrian population and were among the most persecuted and vulnerable of all Syrians as they were being hunted down and killed by ISIS and other Sunni rebel groups fighting the Assad regime.

A group of foreign policy advisers to former Democrat presidents, including Madeleine Albright, John Kerry, Susan Rice, Leon Panetta and other top aides to ex-president Barack Obama filed a brief with the Ninth Circuit urging the court to uphold Robart’s block of the president’s executive order.

“We view the Order as one that ultimately undermines the national security of the United States, rather than making us safer,” they argued.

“Reinstating the Executive Order would wreak havoc on innocent lives and deeply held American values.”

Bernie Sanders, the socialist senator from Vermont who ran for president in the Democratic primary, put out a tweet Monday that he also hopes the courts strike down Trump’s temporary ban:

“It is extraordinary how little Donald Trump knows about immigration, or cares about the Constitution, rule of law or separation of powers.”

It is extraordinary how little Donald Trump knows about immigration, or cares about the Constitution, rule of law or separation of powers.

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) February 6, 2017


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Trump orders temporary ban on refugees #160105
02/07/2017 03:45 PM
02/07/2017 03:45 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,626
East of the Pacific
fal3 Offline
Senior Member
fal3  Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,626
East of the Pacific
Our homesteads have fences, and our homes have walls. Why ? We want to enjoy the God-given right of ownership without having to share it with others.

Even Heaven has walls, gates, and everyone who enters can do so only after being invited and fulfilling the stated requirements. And it doesn't matter what egotistical judge complains about it--fact is, God owns it all !


----------------------------------
"Take heed: watch and pray, for ye know not when the time is." -- Mark 13:33.
Re: Trump orders temporary ban on refugees #160106
02/09/2017 11:38 AM
02/09/2017 11:38 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,872
Tulsa
airforce Online content
Administrator
airforce  Online Content
Administrator
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,872
Tulsa
The Ninth Circuit has ruled against the Trump administration and upheld the temporary restraining order. What happens next is unclear - the government can take it to district court in Seattle, or have it heard by the Ninth Circuit en banc, but it's clear this will end up in the Supreme Court.

And we'll be hearing about it on Twitter a time or two, as well.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Re: Trump orders temporary ban on refugees #160107
02/09/2017 11:52 AM
02/09/2017 11:52 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,626
East of the Pacific
fal3 Offline
Senior Member
fal3  Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,626
East of the Pacific
When judges are legislating their own agenda, and Gorsuch won't be on the bench of the Supreme court in time to hear the case, I see nothing but deliberate and intentional continued stonewalling of whatever Trump wants to turn around. Just wait till Obama gets off his extended vacation.

So, what will all the "silent" patriots do when they discover that the country's judiciary has been sold out to the socialists and globalists ? Probably nothing more than to dust off their Trump ball caps, and wear their Trump T-Shirts in public again. They will settle for the blessing of not having Obama in office, and fail to do anything meaningful.

I said it before--if you want a running commentary on what is happening in the US--just watch the movie, 'Planet of The Apes' again. It has a lot fo parallels.

But, as ConSigCor has wisely noted, it does give us a short time to prepare for what is up ahead.


----------------------------------
"Take heed: watch and pray, for ye know not when the time is." -- Mark 13:33.
Re: Trump orders temporary ban on refugees #160108
02/09/2017 12:11 PM
02/09/2017 12:11 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Offline OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Offline OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
I noticed today that the ferral judge who overruled Trump is a "advocate of LGBT rights". Yeah, that's what we need a queer lover legislating from the bench. Trump should do what Andrew Jackson did many years ago...Tell the federal judges where to stick it and proceed with or without their approval.

Look back throughout history, all the presidents have exercised their authority to ban certain immigrants. Eisenhower not only banned Mexicans, but had them rounded up and deported.

If you need more proof that the Democrat party is the party of hypocrites then here it is.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama calling for just what Donald Trump is trying to do.

Where was the outrage?

https://youtu.be/4bGBqrsQynw


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Trump orders temporary ban on refugees #160109
02/09/2017 12:44 PM
02/09/2017 12:44 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Offline OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Offline OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
Trump Destroys Leftist Judges by Reading Law Word-For-Word

Open borders activists rewriting law from the bench

Dan Lyman | Infowars.com - February 8, 2017

President Trump addressed a law enforcement conference in Washington D.C. where he expressed his shock and dismay at leftist judges blocking the border security policies set forth in his recent executive order.

Trump read language from the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 which clearly grants the President express powers to control the entry of non-citizens into the United States on virtually any basis, but specifically as a duty to protect the citizens from potentially dangerous groups of foreigners.

“Now we’re in an area that… they are interpreting things differently than probably 100% of the people in this room,” began Trump, referring to the judges involved in blocking his orders. “This was done for the security of our nation, the security of our citizens, so that people who come in who aren’t going to do us harm – and that’s why it was done.”

“It couldn’t have been written anymore precisely… A bad high school student could understand this,” continued

He proceeded to read from the U.S. Code on “Inadmissible Aliens” –

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

“I watched last night in amazement, and I heard things that I couldn’t believe, things that really had nothing to do with what I just read,” said the President, referring to the presumably convoluted arguments of lawyers and judges in deliberation.

“I don’t ever want to call a court biased… but courts seem to be so political,” he continued. “It would be so great for our justice system if they would be able to read a statement and do what’s right – and that has to do with the security of our country, which is so important.”

“Right now, we are at risk because of what happened.”

If the U.S. does not win this case as it so obviously should, we can never have the security and safety to which we are entitled. Politics!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 8, 2017

President Trump went on to make clear why the executive order went into place so suddenly, saying that he had proposed a notice period of either one month or one week – which his advisors shot down.

He distilled their explanation: “‘You can’t give a notice. If you give a notice that we’re going to be really tough one month from now, or in one week from now – then people are going to pour in before the… restrictions,’” to which the crowd of law enforcement and security specialists applauded.

He circled back to the previous night’s hearings: “I want to tell you – I listened to a bunch of stuff last night on television that was disgraceful.”

Thank you to our great Police Chiefs & Sheriffs for your leadership & service. You have a true friend in the @WhiteHouse. We support you! pic.twitter.com/niwuK5rgXR

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 8, 2017

A recent poll conducted by Investor’s Business Daily shows that a majority of Americans (51%) support Trump’s executive order.

Additionally, a poll of nearly 10,000 Europeans from around the continent revealed that over 55% want immigration from Muslim-dominated countries halted completely.


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Trump orders temporary ban on refugees #160110
02/09/2017 01:07 PM
02/09/2017 01:07 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,872
Tulsa
airforce Online content
Administrator
airforce  Online Content
Administrator
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,872
Tulsa
I guess you can call me an "open borders activist" too, but Trump clearly has the law on his side. The Ninth Circuit is the most overturned circuit anyway, and I'm pretty confident this will get overturned as well.

It may be moot, since Trump's order was going to expire in 90 days anyway. If he can get that "extreme vetting" in place over the next couple days, it really won't make any difference. But if I were him, I'd pursue it in court anyway.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Re: Trump orders temporary ban on refugees #160111
02/10/2017 05:42 AM
02/10/2017 05:42 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,872
Tulsa
airforce Online content
Administrator
airforce  Online Content
Administrator
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,872
Tulsa
Here is the 29-page decision from the Ninth Circuit. In a nutshell, the judges ruled that many of the people covered by the ban have a right to due process, which the government has not respected.

Trump could simply rewrite his order to focus on unvetted foreign nationals who have never visited the U.S. before. That would answer most of the due process concerns. "Even if the TRO might be overbroad in some respects," the 9th Circuit wrote, "it is not our role to try, in effect, to rewrite the Executive Order. The political branches are far better equipped to make appropriate distinctions."

Onward and upward,
airforce

Re: Trump orders temporary ban on refugees #160112
02/10/2017 06:16 AM
02/10/2017 06:16 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Offline OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Offline OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
The left will love this...

Quote
Media miss major policy shift in Trump's immigration order

Amid rancor over 'ban,' administration identifies 'heart of the problem'

Art Moore

Amid the controversy over President Trump’s executive order on immigration, a major philosophical change in counter-terrorism strategy articulated in the order has been largely missed.

In contrast to the frequent reassurances of previous presidents that it is a “religion of peace,” Islam – the historic, fundamentalist interpretation that is mainstream across the Middle East – will be regarded by the Trump administration as a hostile political ideology that threatens the U.S. Constitution.

Brian Thomas, a contributor to Jihad Watch, wrote that the important development has been lost in the focus on Trump’s order to temporarily block entry to visitors and migrants from seven terror-producing countries.

“While they carried on their endless discussion of the completely tangential list of exactly which countries citizens had their nonexistent ‘right’ to enter the United States curtailed, the administration continued to pursue its clearly defined purpose,” wrote Thomas.

“That purpose is to focus the full resources of the federal government on the only ideology that threatens the republic at this time.”

Without mentioning Islam or Muslims, the order, he said, “arrives at the heart of the problem.”

“Islamic values always lead to intolerance. Islam’s guiding texts are all fundamentally devoted to separating the world between believers and non-believers,” he said. “All of our liberal freedoms and our equality stem from a Judeo-Christian belief that all men are created in the image of God and are equal before equitable laws. That is not at the heart of Islam.”

Trump’s order states:

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.

Last week, WND reported that, according to five sources briefed on the matter who spoke to Reuters, the Trump administration is about to make good on its promise to “name the enemy” with a plan to recast its Countering Violent Extremism program as “Countering Islamic Extremism” or “Countering Radical Islamic Extremism.”

‘Hostile political ideology’

Thomas said the first line in the Trump executive order is evidence that it “isn’t something they put together in a week; this is evidence of their entire thinking on Islam and the defence of the west.”

“They’re going to treat Islam as a hostile political ideology. That is what has been needed for decades. It is the reversal of the ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ doctrine set in place by Bush on September 17, 2001.”

He said the statement that the United States “must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles” should “strike terror into the hearts of anyone looking to promote Islamic law above the United States’ existing constitution.”

That intention is made even more explicit with the next sentence: “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.”

Thomas noted it would apply to a communist overthrow of the United States,”but the only real threat on the global stage today is the ideology of Islamic supremacy.”

The order also spotlights Islam by specifying the U.S. 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.”

Thomas recalled that CNN sought to impugn chief Trump adviser Steve Bannon by digging up a 2010 quote in which he criticized President George W. Bush for proclaiming Islam a “religion of peace.”

“Islam is not a religion of peace. Islam is a religion of submission. Islam means submission.” Bannon said.

‘Wrongheaded’ move?

While the change in overall philosophy toward counter-terrorism embedded in the executive order has received little notice, three Democratic congressmen have protested the administration’s plan to abandon the broad Countering Violent Extremism strategy, the Hill reported.


In a letter Friday, Democratic Reps. Bennie Thompson of Maryland, Eliot Engel of New York and John Conyers of Michigan said the move “is wrongheaded insofar as persons who commit acts of violent extremism are inspired by diverse political, religious and philosophical beliefs, and are not limited to any single population or region.”

Thompson is the ranking Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, while Conyers is the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee. Engel holds that title on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

The congressmen join critics who have complained that the U.S. would no longer target groups such as white supremacists.

However, there have been more than 30,000 violent jihad terror attacks worldwide since 9/11 while the white supremacist threat, Jihad Watch Director Robert Spencer has pointed out, has been “wildly exaggerated” by George Soros-funded groups and media “that downplay and deny the jihad threat.”

He further argues that jihad “is an international movement set on destroying the U.S. and found on every continent; white supremacism is not.”

He noted that a widely publicized study purporting to show that “right-wing extremists” have killed more people in the U.S. than Islamic jihadis, and thus pose a greater threat, has been debunked on many grounds.

The Congress members said changing course would damage national security by feeding into the propaganda created by terrorist groups and child domestic and international diplomatic relations.

They also fear it would alienate Muslim-American communities who might otherwise cooperate with law-enforcement.

But Spencer argued that Islamic jihadis routinely cite the texts and teachings of Islam to justify their actions and make recruits among peaceful Muslims.

“The idea that Muslims who reject jihad terror will be enraged if the U.S. government takes note of this is absurd,” he said. “If they reject jihad terror, they won’t embrace it because officials are saying things they don’t like; in fact, if they really reject it, they should welcome and cooperate with efforts to identify its causes and eradicate them.”

Spencer said the congressmen essentially are “recommending that we curtail our speech to avoid criticizing Islam.”

He cited a Shariah, or Islamic law, blasphemy provision that the Organization of Islamic Cooperation has been trying to get the U.S. to accept by means of “hate speech” laws for years.

“That the statements of Thompson, Engel and Conyers are simply today’s conventional wisdom is one indication of how successful these efforts have been,” he said.

In Canada already, a Muslim member of the House of Commons, Liberal MP Iqra Khalid, has filed a motion that critics say could set the government on a path to criminalizing so-called Islamophobia.

The petition sets out to “recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear” then laments that an “infinitesimally small number of extremist individuals have conducted terrorist activities while claiming to speak for the religion of Islam.”

“Their actions have been used as a pretext for a notable rise of anti-Muslim sentiments in Canada,” it states.

Columnist Anthony Furey comments that it’s easy to see “how denouncing a radical imam for his Shariah advocacy could end up being considered, in the eyes of this motion, an Islamophobic act that’s a part of this alleged uptick in public fear.”

“This is an attempt to silence rational critics of political Islam.”

Enemy within

The New York Times reported this week President Trump’s advisers are debating an order to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization.

The new CIA director, Mike Pompeo, co-sponsored a bill when he was in Congress to ban the Brotherhood and once warned in a radio interview that Islamic supremacist groups tied to the Brotherhood were infiltrating the United States.

Among them are the Washington, D.C.-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, CAIR, which has been designated a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates and was found, according to evidence in a terror-funding trial, to be a front for the Muslim Brotherhood.

WND reported last week CAIR is calling on Muslim American citizens re-entering the United States to refuse to answer the questions of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers if they are taken aside for secondary screening.

In 2011, CAIR’s San Francisco chapter featured a poster on its website urging Muslims to “build a wall of resistance” against the FBI by refusing to talk to the bureau’s agents.

The FBI severed ties with CAIR in 2008 after the U.S. Justice Department named the Washington-based group an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal scheme led by the Holy Land Foundation to funnel millions of dollars to Hamas suicide bombers and their families.


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Trump orders temporary ban on refugees #160113
02/11/2017 07:17 AM
02/11/2017 07:17 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Offline OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Offline OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
It's 'coup d'etat' by 9th Circuit

Answer should be 'arrest judges and put them in jail when they violate constitutional authority'

Bob Unruh

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals carried out a “coup d’etat” when it ignored both federal law and U.S. Supreme Court precedent to maintain a suspension of President Trump’s order to bar entry to travelers from seven terror-supporting nations.

John Eastman, a commentator for the Hill, said the 9th Circuit’s ruling upholding federal Judge James Robart’s nationwide temporary restraining order “is nearly as bereft of legal analysis as was the original TRO.”

“For example, in determining whether Trump was likely to succeed on the merits, one might have expected some discussion of the relevant statute that unambiguously gives the president the authority to do what he did here (and what President Carter, in response to the Iranian takeover of our embassy in Tehran, did back in 1979).”

The statute says: “Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restriction he may deem to be appropriate.”

Eastman commented it “does not get much clearer than that, yet the 9th Circuit does not even cite, much less explain away, that statute.”

Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh noted how judges who failed to follow the law were dealt with historically.

“You know, I long for the days of Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln; just arrest the judges and put them in jail when they violate your constitutional authority. I don’t think people have any idea who Andrew Jackson was. They think he was a populist. They don’t know what he did. He went too far, don’t misunderstand. But this is simply outrageous.”

Eugene Kontorovich at the Volohk Conspiracy legal blog went further, blasting the 9th Circuit for citing Trump’s statements as a presidential candidate.

“There is absolutely no precedent for courts looking to a politician’s statements from before he or she took office, let alone campaign promises, to establish any kind of impermissible motive,” he said.

“The 9th Circuit fairly disingenuously cites several Supreme Court cases that show ‘that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered.’ … But the cases it mentions do nothing more than look at legislative history – the formal process of adopting the relevant measure. … It provides absolutely no support for looking before the state of formal deliberations on the measure to the political process of electing its proponents.”

He said the 9th Circuit’s ruling Thursday “throws open a huge door to examinations of the entire lives of political officials whose motives may be relevant to legal questions.”

At FoxNews.com, Hans von Spakovsky wrote the 9th Circuit “gets it wrong.”

“Neither the judge in Washington state nor the court has offered anything approaching a detailed discussion of 8 U.S.C Paragraph 1182 (f), the law which specifically gives the president authority to suspend the entry of any aliens into the U.S. if he believes their entry would be ‘detrimental to the interests of the United States.'”

He said, “It is just another example of arrogant federal courts grabbing power from the legislative and executive branches in violation of basic separation-of-powers principles.”

Joseph DeGenova, who was a U.S. attorney under President Reagan, said it was a decision based on politics, not the law.

“You could tell this was a pretty liberal panel. The ruling is outrageous,” he told LifeZette. “It’s an abomination. It’s an intrusion on the president’s authority in the area of foreign policy and national security.”

“This is a judicial coup d’etat,” he said, describing the result of the work of the 9th Circuit panel as “a judicial embarrassment.”

Limbaugh charged the original ruling by a federal judge in Washington state, Robarts, was “pure Democrat hackery.”

“This is simply a ruling that has nothing to do with the law. … This is pure left-wing hackery. They get to make it look like it’s law because they wear robes, and they are judges on a court. And so that imagery conveys all the authority and the rights that they have to do this kind of thing when it is in clear violation of the Constitution.”

He said the nation now is the middle of a political civil war.

It was Jeffrey Lord on CNN, Limbaugh said, who explained that “Thomas Jefferson said it’s up to each branch [of government] to decide how in the world they are going to define the Constitution’s separation of powers.”

Limbaugh said: “I don’t think we’re that far from a civil war in this country right now. I’m not talking about armed conflict, North v. South, but we clearly have a divide in this country that is in no way gonna be bridged. It isn’t gonna be bridged by compromise. It’s not gonna be bridged by walking across the aisle and getting along with people, and it’s not gonna be bridged by persuading people to agree with us and vice-versa.

“The only way this is ever gonna end is when one side gets defeated – politically defeated – and becomes a demonstrable minority,” he said.

Left-wingers do not want it to end, he pointed out.

“This is normalcy for the left. You must understand this. This is what they want life in American to be day in and day out. Remember, they are victims. They are not happy. As victims, it is impossible to be happy. It’s impossible to be content. They think there are no reasons to be happy. Even when Obama was winning and he was in the White House, they were still livid and angry every day! Over what? The fact that there was opposition to Obama!”


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Trump orders temporary ban on refugees #160114
02/11/2017 07:18 AM
02/11/2017 07:18 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,872
Tulsa
airforce Online content
Administrator
airforce  Online Content
Administrator
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,872
Tulsa
It looks like the Ninth Circuit may hear the case en banc[/i] after all. At least one judge on the Ninth Circuit (likely either Judge Kosinski or Judge Bybee) has filed a [i]sua sponte request to hear the case. The court will no vote on whether to hear the case.

The Ninth Circuit is by far the most liberal circuit court, and it's unlikely the case will be even heard,much less reversed. Still, this is interesting.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Re: Trump orders temporary ban on refugees #160115
02/23/2017 04:37 AM
02/23/2017 04:37 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Offline OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Offline OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
DHS To Expedite Deportation Proceedings By Not Using Judges

Alex Pfeiffer
02/22/2017



With immigration courts reaching a record backlog in 2016, Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly ordered Monday that illegal immigrants who have been in the U.S. for less than two years should be allowed to be deported without a court hearing.

Kelly signed two memos Monday that made significant changes to the nation’s immigration policy. They ordered the immediate construction of a border wall, expanded the amount of local police who will enforce immigration law, and put every illegal immigrant — excluding those protected under President Obama’s executive amnesty — at risk of deportation.

Condemnation of the plan by pro-immigration activists and Democratic politicians was swift. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said in a statement Tuesday, “By targeting those without serious convictions, those who have merely been charged with offenses, or those recent arrivals — including unaccompanied children — who have posed no safety threat to our neighborhoods, the President has chosen the politics of division over our nation’s safety.”

The policy director of the Center for Immigration Studies Jessica Vaughan, who advocates for reduced immigration, on the other hand told Newsweek the memos are a “welcome move.”

One of the lesser noticed policy directives in the memos was that Secretary Kelly essentially put up hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants up for immediate deportation.

“It is in the national interest to detain and expeditiously remove from the United States aliens apprehended at the border, who have been ordered removed after consideration and denial of their claims for relief or protection,” Kelly wrote in one of the two memos.

Existing immigration law allows an immigration officer to order the removal of an illegal immigrant without a court hearing, unless the illegal immigrant is an unaccompanied child or is applying for asylum.

Kelly went to write that he will expand this authority, known as the “expedited removal provisions,” to include illegal immigrants who have not been physically present in the U.S. for two years. An estimated 300,000 to 400,000 illegal immigrants enter the U.S. every year.

“To date, this authority has only been exercised to designate for application of expedited removal, aliens encountered within 100 air miles of the border and 14 days of entry, and aliens who arrived in the United States by sea other than at a port of entry,” the Homeland Security secretary wrote.

U.S. immigration courts reached a record backlog of 533,909 cases at the end of 2016, more than double the 223,809 pending cases when President Obama took office in 2009. Secretary Kelly used this backlog to justify his decision. (RELATED: Former Mexican Official Wants To Sabotage US Courts With Thousands Of Deportation Cases)

“This unacceptable delay affords removable aliens with no plausible claim for relief to remain unlawfully in the United States for many years,” Kelly wrote.

Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, told The Daily Caller, “Congress gave the executive this wide ‘expedited removal’ authority in the 1996 immigration law, which keeps cases out of the immigration courts, but all the administrations since then have applied it very narrowly. So this simply represents the executive using this congressionally granted authority to its full extent.”

The memo calls for the DHS to publish a notice in the Federal Register designating aliens subject to expedited removal. This notice as yet to be published, and a department spokeswoman told TheDC, “there is not a specified time at this point” for publication.


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861

.
©>
©All information posted on this site is the private property of the individual author and AWRM.net and may not be reproduced without permission. © 2001-2020 AWRM.net All Rights Reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.1.1