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.
Here is my favorite part of Trump's edict regarding the definition of close family.
Notice how the definition of "close family" mirrors Trump's family, so that it would include all of the children by different wives, half-siblings, step-children and their spouses, but one's own grandparents, aunts or uncles aren't included?
I think this odd definition of close family will definitely be brought into question. As usual Trump policy is totally self-centered.
"...According to a diplomatic cable obtained by The New York Times, “close family” is “defined as a parent (including parent-in-law), spouse, child, adult son or daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, sibling, whether whole or half. This includes step relationships.”
So is he actually going to start working on improving the vetting procedures? I mean that was supposed to have been done within 90 days from the last implementation of the ban, right?
Why isn't it done yet, if the priority is to keep the US safe?
So is he actually going to start working on improving the vetting procedures? I mean that was supposed to have been done within 90 days from the last implementation of the ban, right?
Why isn't it done yet, if the priority is to keep the US safe?
He's too busy insulting the hosts of Morning Joe on twitter, and holding illegal fundraisers for 2020 to be bothered with things like extreme vetting.
So you don't know. You simply state it as disingenuous argument against Trump.
No there is no logic in your statement. Because I don't know for sure where the next terrorist is coming from doesn't logically result with me having a disingenuous argument against Trump.
I don't have an argument against Trump with this ban.
I have concerns that the focus is lost, that the focus is no longer about the security but it is now about 'winning'. I'm more concerned with effectiveness of policies implemented with the goal to secure our borders. i am hoping the review of immigration policies is done in a timely manner and the results revealed.
Good point! Caught them in their own stereotyping they accuse some of us here.
No it's not a good point at all.
If you have at all read this thread you will see that my concern is more about historically where the terrorists who have done the most damage on USA soil have lived...not so much what religion they practice.
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.
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.
