Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's a temporary ban until better vetting methods are put into place.
I would like to see Saudi Arabia and Pakistan included in the ban as well, but the political and economic reality is that the US will need Pakistan's help when it effects regime change in Iran and the Central Asia States, and the US needs Saudi Arabia to sell its oil in US Dollars on the global market to keep your economy intact.
LOL I know. but hey anything for liberals to get their panties all bunched up and screaming like wet cats.
Look at the Tsarnaevs for example; they came here on a tourist visa, then applied for assylum with some BS excuse they feared being persecuted for being Chechens in Dagestan.
So they purposely moved from Kyrgyzstan, a safe and stable country, to Russian Dagestan, then turn around and claim they are going to be persecuted, and the US grants them refugee status? Why not tell them to go back to Kyrgyzstan?
It is this rather laxed criteria that I do not like.
Until anyone can show me how the current immigration and foreign travel policies of our country failed, I don't support modifications nor a ban on travel.
This is not "restrictions on travel". It is a bar on ALL CITIZENS from the effected countries, even if they're LPR's and dual passport holders. If you hold an AMERICAN passport and are a dual citizen with one of these countries, you are also barred.
If you hold a US Passport - you don't NEED a Visa.
More Hysterical Meltdown & FAKE NEWS
Do we know the criteria by which 7 countries were selected?
There are some countries that seem to be left off.... ISIS/L claimed territory and other hot beds for activity. Why Iran? Not Saudi-Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Qatar, etc. We have a terrorist acts actually carried out by nationals not on the list. Wasn't 9/11 hijackers from Saudi-Arabia, Lebanon, and UEA? None of which are on the list.
Does the exec order state what will happen if the resulting proposed policies do not meet Trump's idea of "extreme vetting" at the end of the temporary ban? Does the temporary ban go indefinitely until so? Whether or not you agree or not, it is important to know the criteria by which such actions are lifted.
That's actually more of a concern of mine than the actual ban. Historically, unilateral actions (martial law in extreme cases) without any reasonable "end" is used to expand power indefinitely and political leverage. Ferdinand Marcos (of Philippines) declared martial law for almost 10 years to rule unchecked.
It is reasonable and prudent. The US didn't welcome Japanese or German immigrants during WWII and we should not welcome immigrants from countries that harbor terrorists during the War on Terror. That is the commonest sense of all common sense.
The Democrats are whipping up their followers to a crescendo so they will already be at full throat when President Trump announces his Supreme Court nominee. That's the reason for the current frenzy.
These people seem to forget that Clinton and Obama said the same things as Trump is saying and DOING. As it turns out these same exact policies and words were said "way back" when Vietnamese refugees were being brought into the country.
But that was okay as a LIBERAL was in charge...
If Canada keeps taking in all of those refugees we may need to worry more about our northern border than the southern one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.