U.S Election 2016

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

I have not agreed with every thing he has said or done, a point I have made before in this thread, however, regardless what you or I agree on is irrelevant. He was Elected on a Mandate to strict border control. The people who voted for him obviously wanted this and given the US is not mine nor your country, it's none of our business.

Do you agree with Sir Mo Farrah that the recent travel ban is "divisive and discriminatory?"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/38788910

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Do you agree with Sir Mo Farrah that the recent travel ban is "divisive and discriminatory?"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/38788910

I saw the story earlier today on the news. I refer you to my last post, whatever I/we agree/don't agree on is irrelevant, though I point out the massive hypocrisy, that there was already a 'Muslim ban' before this so called 'Muslim ban' before Trump became President and no-one bat an eyelid during or since it's inception.

Originally Posted by Mick

It was in the news yesterday that cases are being dealt with, on a case by case basis. I am sure if Mo Farah or the Tory MP that is said to run in to problems, or whoever else has a residence in the US will be admitted as the exception, it does say that if people have bothered to read the Executive Order.

I've seen a lot of hypocrisy this weekend and I cannot be bothered to explain it, so I'll just leave these here:-



http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/an...e3a4d1e5ded377

AND:-



https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28...wont-tell-you/

The big difference Mick is that Obama didn't use an executive order to ban Muslims ,he went through congress,he didn't arbitrarily ban anyone and the legislation was thought about ,it went through the correct process to ensure it was right .Trump has obviously just woken up at 3am and thought "i know,i'll ban Muslims from some countries today" and as a result the legislation has caused problems for many people with a legal right to be in the country ,also what you linked to and what Obama did isn't a ban ,it merely states that people from some countries need visas .How long before he starts rounding Muslims up and deporting them

It's also noteworthy that Trump has business interests in many Muslim countries that are linked with terrorism ,like Saudi Arabia for example ,the country that most of the 9/11 terrorists came from,why no ban for them ?

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by martyh

It's also noteworthy that Trump has business interests in many Muslim countries that are linked with terrorism ,like Saudi Arabia for example ,the country that most of the 9/11 terrorists came from,why no ban for them ?

Any Muslim country with either a Trump hotel or office has not been placed on the list.

Originally Posted by pip08456

Any Muslim country with either a Trump hotel or office has not been placed on the list.

You have to admire Trump's foresight when expanding his business not to do so into a country that future President Trump would place a ban on.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Any Muslim country with either a Trump hotel or office has not been placed on the list.

Well that's alright then, as long as you're not on 'the list'.

Originally Posted by martyh

The big difference Mick is that Obama didn't use an executive order to ban Muslims ,he went through congress,he didn't arbitrarily ban anyone and the legislation was thought about ,it went through the correct process to ensure it was right .Trump has obviously just woken up at 3am and thought "i know,i'll ban Muslims from some countries today" and as a result the legislation has caused problems for many people with a legal right to be in the country ,also what you linked to and what Obama did isn't a ban ,it merely states that people from some countries need visas .How long before he starts rounding Muslims up and deporting them

It's also noteworthy that Trump has business interests in many Muslim countries that are linked with terrorism ,like Saudi Arabia for example ,the country that most of the 9/11 terrorists came from,why no ban for them ?

The big difference is that there is no difference, a ban is a ban either by EO or formed in to law by Congress.

Not noteworthy at all, you see this is where the massive hypocrisy lies, the 7 countries deemed a risk and currently on the list are a prior selection by the Obama Administration.

And it was a ban by the Obama Administration: Text saying "Under the Act, travelers in the following categories will no longer be eligible to enter or be Admitted in to the US, under the VWP." : This sure as hell looks like a ban to me.

Another false flag, he did not dream this up at 3AM. He said he was going to do this as an Election Pledge.

Originally Posted by Mick

The big difference is that there is no difference, a ban is a ban either by EO or formed in to law by Congress.

Not noteworthy at all, you see this is where the massive hypocrisy lies, the 7 countries deemed a risk and currently on the list are a prior selection by the Obama Administration.

And it was a ban by the Obama Administration: Text saying "Under the Act, travelers in the following categories will no longer be eligible to enter or be Admitted in to the US, under the VWP." : This sure as hell looks like a ban to me.

Another false flag, he did not dream this up at 3AM. He said he was going to do this as an Election Pledge.

It means they had to apply for a Visa. It's right there in your quote '"Under the Act, travelers in the following categories will no longer be eligible to enter or be Admitted in to the US, under the VWP (Visa Waiver program)." That's not a ban. Trump has banned them from getting Visas and until now has also banned those with valid visas and even with Green Cards from re-entering.

Here is the announcement of Obama's policy:

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/...waiver-program

Including:

Individuals impacted will still be able to apply for a visa using the regular immigration process at our embassies or consulates. For those who need a U.S. visa for urgent business, medical, or humanitarian travel to the United States, U.S. embassies and consulates stand ready to provide visa interview appointments on an expedited basis. The new law does not ban travel to the United States, or admission into the United States, and the great majority of Visa Waiver Program travelers will not be affected.

[Mr K]

The petition with withdraw Trump's invite is closing in on 1 million.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/171928/

I'm sticking to my original view that its massive hypocrisy at it's finest. No one bats an eyelid when Christians are slaughtered in the Middle East and no one bat an eyelid when Obama banned Iraqis in 2011 for 6 months.

[Pierre]

It's not a Muslim ban.

It's a country ban, countries that the US deem to be risky. If you're a Christian from one of these countries you are also banned.

Pakistan the biggest muslim country in the world is not banned, nor is Indonesia.

If you are muslim from the UK, France, Spain etc you are not banned.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

It's a country ban, countries that the US deem to be risky. If you're a Christian from one of these countries you are also banned.

I think you're right but what happened to Trump's pledge to allow Syrian Christians in? Was it deemed inpractical?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7550521.html

[pip08456]

Actually it's debatable if it actually is a ban or not.

According to the Executive Order it is merely a 90 suspension

To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established...

https://twitter.com/Morning_Joe/stat...29134186835968

The blame for this seems to be moving towards Trump's aides who wrote the EO without consulting anyone.

---------- Post added at 12:28 ---------- Previous post was at 12:04 ----------

And...https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/2....co/QPe1K1s9kI

Mr. Kelly’s department had suggested green card holders be exempted from the order, but Mr. Bannon and Mr. Miller, a hard-liner on immigration, overruled him, according to two American officials.

Why would they do that? It was a intentional decision to bar Green card holders. They must have wanted the outrage.

[Osem]

1 million sign petition to stop Trump's state visit. I wonder if there's been any abuse of that particular mechanism. If not maybe we ought to adopt it for minor stuff like general elections.

I heard Baroness Chakrabati being interviewed on TV this morning. Evidently she says doesn't want to offend Trump but doesn't mind calling him a racist, misogynist. Unsuprisngly she didn't have too much to say about all the other oppressive leaders who've been granted state visits in the past and whose records (as opposed to rhetoric) are far worse than Trump's. Still I suppose we weren't being 'governed' by Twitter-rage in those days...