• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)

Status
Not open for further replies.
The problem that has been overlooked in all this is the lack of planning and preparation that preceded the issuing of the EO.

Government agencies that would be implementing the directives had little or no warning that this was to be released, so were caught with their tighty whiteys around their ankles. The State Department which would be the lead alongside Homeland Security has no leadership installed yet. The nominee for Sec State hasn't been confirmed, and the deputies below the Secretary either left, retired on Jan 20th, or were not asked to stay on temporarily. They lost a huge amount of institutional knowledge in one shot.

CBP (customs and border protection) were given no direction on how to deal with legal permanent residents (green card holders). There was no clarification on how to address admitted applicants who were in transit to the US.

Administration spokespeople had different messages as to who was covered and who was exempt.

Even the mouthpieces from the campaign couldn't stay on message. Giuliani went on thr record stating Trump asked him to figure out how to do a legal ban on muslims entering the country.

Even Trump himself contradicts the policy by telling a Christian News interviewer that preference will be given to Christian refugees.

GOP congessional members are starting to line up criticizing this fiasco. McCain and Graham both called this a self inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism. Others have said this policy hasn't been vetted itself.

If we have to endure another 207 weeks like this, Trump's dystopian view of how America is now will become a self fullfilling prophesy.
 
I'm beginning to think that investing in aluminum and posterboard stocks was a good idea.
 
cupper said:
If we have to endure another 207 weeks like this, Trump's dystopian view of how America is now will become a self fullfilling prophesy.

This is just the last 24 hours.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=trump+protest&biw=1536&bih=723&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F29%2F2017%2Ccd_max%3A1%2F30%2F2017&tbm=


https://www.google.ca/search?q=trump+protest&biw=1536&bih=723&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1/29/2017,cd_max:1/30/2017&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-p6qY-unRAhVl64MKHRa_AF4Q_AUICigD



 
What may be more disturbing is the reorganization of the National Security Council.

Steve Bannon as Presidential Strategist now has a seat on the NSC, but the DNI and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs are only sit in when their expertise is necessary for the discussion at hand.

But Trump has a wonderful relationship with the intelligence community, and he has great respect for them.

Gotta wonder how much of this is Mike Flynn getting payback.
 
Anyone planning to fly to the US should prepare for delays, both with fights and getting in and out of airports. And this isn't going to improve any time soon.
 
open-uri20150608-27674-8axz7n_d1d7c2b1.jpeg

hitchhikers-guide-to-the-galaxy-hoodie-sweat-marvin-very-depressed_zpse740fae7.jpg

DadsArmyFrazierdoomed_zps6d0ba782.png


Pick one.....  [:D
 
Some levity.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gneBUA39mnI
 
The left is in full meltdown and twisting the EO into something it doesnt say.Read Legal Insurrection to get a feel for facts instead of the fakery of the left. Obama did the same type of EO to temporrily block Iraq refugee's. There is no ban on muslims if you read the EO but there is a 90 day ban of people from 7 middle eastern countries. By the way the web site is run by Professor Jacobson of Cornell Law.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/01/most-claims-about-trumps-visa-executive-order-are-false-or-misleading/

Most claims about Trump’s visa Executive Order are false or misleading
 
Never let the truth get in the way of some good old righteous indignation.
 
cupper said:
Anyone planning to fly to the US should prepare for delays, both with fights and getting in and out of airports. And this isn't going to improve any time soon.

Some advice from the Trumps about how to beat those delays at airport security :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uNPpFZLelE
 
REUTERS

Republican U.S. Senators McCain, Graham: Order may help recruit terrorists

"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," said McCain, of Arizona, and Graham, of South Carolina.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-senators-idUSKBN15D11H

Tweets back,
"Senators should focus their energies on ISIS, illegal immigration and border security instead of always looking to start World War III."
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/825823217025691648

Scheduled protests for today,
https://www.google.ca/search?q=trump+protest+monday&biw=1536&bih=723&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F29%2F2017%2Ccd_max%3A1%2F30%2F2017&tbm=

Including Canada.
U.S. State Department,
Security Msg for #Toronto -planned protest at US consulate Jan 30. US cits exercise caution. Consulate will have limited operations Jan 30.
Security Message for #Ottawa, #Canada- planned protest at US Embassy on Sussex Dr Jan 30, 12-2pm. US cits should exercise caution.
Security Message for US Citizens:  Planned Demonstrations in Downtown Montreal on Saturday January 28, between 12:00 and 14:00

"Donald Trump's state visit to the UK is expected to be debated in Parliament"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/29/petition-calling-donald-trumps-state-visit-uk-cancelled-gets/






 
mariomike said:
Scheduled protests for today,
https://www.google.ca/search?q=trump+protest+monday&biw=1536&bih=723&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F29%2F2017%2Ccd_max%3A1%2F30%2F2017&tbm=

You know you're a success when they name a day after you, It's "Trump Protest Monday".
 
kkwd said:
You know you're a success when they name a day after you, It's "Trump Protest Monday".

I think they could name more than just one day after him.  :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_protests_against_Donald_Trump

 
tomahawk6 said:
The left is in full meltdown and twisting the EO into something it doesnt say.Read Legal Insurrection to get a feel for facts instead of the fakery of the left. Obama did the same type of EO to temporrily block Iraq refugee's. There is no ban on muslims if you read the EO but there is a 90 day ban of people from 7 middle eastern countries. By the way the web site is run by Professor Jacobson of Cornell Law.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/01/most-claims-about-trumps-visa-executive-order-are-false-or-misleading/

Most claims about Trump’s visa Executive Order are false or misleading

At least part of the issue is that it was thrown together so quickly that there ended up being wrong information and therefore confusion.  Had it been done with some lead time, the US government would be able to present a good excuse coherent reason as to why it was done, and any consequences for dual nationals, as is happening for those with Canadian and UK PR/citizenship.  Obviously, having some judges deem the ban unconstitutional isn't helping Trump's cause.

Taking a bit of a sidetrack, there was an interesting comment on Reddit today (and hit the "Best Of" thread) about how US military (Officers noted here but I'm sure the NCM side isn't much different) are viewing all of this.  I remember that while deployed during the 2012 election, US personnel there told me point blank that publicly, in uniform or not, they were told not to discuss politics at all.

Q:  If you don't mind me asking, what's the general mood among [US] officers?

A:  Mixed. Very mixed, with a lot of debate this past week, and far more of it than I ever expected.  You see, typically, we're pretty apolitical about things. Sure, privately at home we'll talk about it, and sometimes over beers or whatever with close friends, but it's not typically something brought up out in the open.  What follows is my own anecdotal experience dealing with people from O-2 on up, in the Navy, so YMMV.

I can tell you the tone has changed over time. When he first began his run in 2015, people didn't take him seriously. Most were hoping their candidates would get the nod, that Hillary wouldn't be a shoe in, etc.  After the election, there was definitely a period of... well, he's President, let's see what he does, give him a chance, and so on. At first, his promise of draining the swamp, being a President for all Americans, etc. looked good. 

Then his picks came in. Mattis? Awesome. Finally, someone who understands everyone from E-1 to O-10, in a position of power. Everyone was ecstatic.  Floating Romney as Secretary of State? Whoa, we might have a pretty all star team there, and a lot of confidence in people both sides of the aisle can deal with.  But then the others came in... Sessions? Perry? What happened to drain the swamp. Even then, it depends - if you're into establishment GOP politicians, these guys weren't too bad. If you were expecting something different, you went hmm.

Then the Russian allegations came out, suggesting that he was compromised. Whoa... might be nothing, but that's a pretty serious charge to levy against the POTUS. Tillerson and the Russia connection? Um, that's not good optics, if nothing else. And if it is anything nefarious? There is no fucking way anyone who knows what Russia's been up to is on board with the 'we should be close friends with Russia' train. We know that you can cooperate with nations on certain issues, like Russia and cooperating with terrorism, but that doesn't necessitate bending over for them or giving them the keys to our secrets or our allies or undermining our own interests for them, and our interests are in many more places.

Inauguration day rolls around, and there's some mockery of the idea of rolling tanks down Pennsylvania Avenue like we're North Korea or the Soviet Union, but whatever, he might not know better and the military was going to push back on the idea, as it did. A few of us chuckled that the Air Force was going to fly an F-35 in the flyover.

But this past week, the tone has changed a bit from 'he's inexperienced, lets see what happens next' to everything from 'i can't believe this guy got elected' to outright mockery at times to 'who the hell is saying this is a good idea.'  The allegations that the election was illegitimate due to voter fraud was surprising to many. Hell, even Fox News, which was on in the ready room, lambasted the allegations, saying that there has been no evidence to prove mass voter fraud. But launch an investigation anyways, it's after all, just 'politicians wasting taxpayer money after all'.

When the Mexico border wall news broke, and then Mexico rebuffed Trump and Trump backed down, some people snickered that 'Trump got played' by Nieto. When Trump threatened a 20% tariff, a lot of people said 'holy shit, do people not realize Mexico is anything but a small economy' to 'is he serious about raising taxes' to 'shit, guacamole is going to get expensive'. Don't tread on our Mexican food, damnit.

Watching Theresa May, the UK Prime Minister, speak and basically force Trump to admit that he was 100% behind NATO in front of the media, on live TV, got some interesting views, ranging from 'she outplayed him' to 'damn, I wish we could have her as our leader'  Again, a surprising lot of open mockery, from things like on how he speaks to his orange-ness. Even as mixed as Obama was to the military, he didn't get that level of mockery that quickly. And Bush certainly never did either, in my experience, even though he had his own quirks and mannerisms that plenty of people made fun of outside of the military.

Then the Muslim ban came down last last week. Once people realized that nations like Saudi Arabia weren't going to be included in the ban (the source of 15/19 of the 9/11 hijackers) or even Lebanon (where Hezbollah is) or Pakistan (a headcase in the best of days for those who have been over in Afghanistan), but instead people from places like Iraq were going to be blanket banned... people started wondering if he was shooting from the hip, given shitty advice, or what was going on.

You see, for a lot of pilots, they distinctly remember the opening of OIR. The Yazidis and Mount Sinjar, which was where some of our first bombs were dropped, and how we were going to get involved to save a persecuted minority... but hearing that they got shafted by this order? Hmmm...

To the guys who have been over there, some said it was wrong to blanket ban people, especially when no considerations were made to interpreters and people who were risking their lives and the lives of their families to help us. It was going to make our jobs harder with the partners we just pissed off, make our word useless, and make future operations harder because no one would want to help us. Someone even mentioned 'this shit is putting our guys needlessly in harms way... what the fuck will happen if somebody gets killed because of this' - I sincerely hope no green on blue comes out of this. No fucking US service member deserves that over what's nothing more than a giant political farce.

And you'd be surprised, but a not insignificant number of people have family members that were immigrants, or wives that are/were immigrants, or even were themselves immigrants at one point early in their life, so when news came out that people with legal permanent status in the US and green card holders and what not were being barred, quite a few were angry. You just don't break your own word and your own laws to fulfill a political promise with little evidence backing it, no matter if you have issues with certain groups of immigrants.
Now, as for the CJSC and DNI being removed as principal matters? It only broke last night, and it's been masked by the immigrant protests and what not, but I guarantee the Monday morning talk will be very interesting. I was personally surprised by the amount of hostility towards the Muslim immigration ban by current officers and guys who've gotten out - guys that were pretty conservative even - and the CJSC and DNI not getting a seat at the table on issues of national security is not going to sit well with the decision makers.

I know that more than one friend has said that "we elected Trump, not Bannon" so Bannon being in the NSC, but our generals and admirals being cut out, is not okay.  Shit, I just thought about it too, even the guys overseas right now must be wondering - next time they have a question on ROE that needs clarification, and it goes to the top, who's the one giving advice on the decision that gets sent back? Are they doing this from a position of legal and moral strength, or doing it off feels, too bad so sad if the consequences get passed on to you?

The implications of this are just sinking in. Without the CJSC and DNI being directly at the table as principal members, we now won't know if decisions made at the top were made with input from the Joint Chiefs or from intelligence gathered by the intel community. It's one thing to make an informed decision that we disagree with, and believe me, many of us disagreed vehemently with Obama over the years, but it's another to shoot from the hip and put our lives and the lives of others at risk - and to do so without CJSC input on the feasibility of decisions, or even their legality? Stannnnddddby

Long story short:
There's the 10-20% or so, the group that things Obama is the worst president ever, etc., that are still firmly on board for various reasons, from believing in him personally to believing he's better than any of the other options

There's the 10-20% or so, the group that was never for Trump/are loyal Democrats, who weren't going to agree with him anyways.

There's the religious folks, who couldn't have seen any other alternative to Trump for their own beliefs, that are on board with not having a liberal in office, but not happy with a lot of his picks or move so far either

There's a huge group of people that I'd say are in the moderate or center-right that are taking this all in (many many chose not to vote this year... the military is primarily young, and political apathy isn't any different) and there is a small but growing sense of concern. Like I said, after this weekend, a lot of the concerns from last week are likely to have been amplified - the poorly thought out immigration ban coupled with removing the CJSC and DNI from the NSC is not going to sit well with a lot of people

I'd say too it varies by rank. The youngest officers/junior officers are generally the more 'ra ra' Trump fans. The older guys and the older JO's who have been over there, done some operarional tours, been on a few deployments, etc. have been far more tempered or outright upset. They can't believe we're cozying up to Russia, they think he's out of his league when it comes to foreign affairs, and can't believe the meddling he's already put on us (the whole F-35 and F/A-18 thing got a big kick out of us over the holidays).

So... a lot of wait and see, but there is definitely a slowly bubbling up concern about his ability to make solid decisions

As I said, this is all from my own experience, and people generally want to keep quiet about things, but it's really struck me how much mockery, even if good natured, has already come out from a group that's usually very respectful about the office even if they disagree with him.

edit: words is hard

https://np.reddit.com/r/Military/comments/5qufgb/executive_order_removes_chairman_joint_chiefs_of/dd30zmm/
 
If I read it correctly, it is not a ban but a pause.  And as far as I know, it is a sovereign state's right to control access.  If Europe had used some discretion in the first place there wouldn't be the problems that they are having now.  So The US has hit the pause button whilst they examine their system for admittance and tune it to try as much as possible to filter out those who do not want to become American.  More power to them! 
 
Dimsum said:
Taking a bit of a sidetrack, there was an interesting comment on Reddit today (and hit the "Best Of" thread) about how US military (Officers noted here but I'm sure the NCM side isn't much different) are viewing all of this.  I remember that while deployed during the 2012 election, US personnel there told me point blank that publicly, in uniform or not, they were told not to discuss politics at all.

https://np.reddit.com/r/Military/comments/5qufgb/executive_order_removes_chairman_joint_chiefs_of/dd30zmm/

I know that the Reddit article is just one person's opinion but it seems pretty perceptive to me. I've been down here in Florida for three weeks now and am seeing much of the same breakdown amongst the folks I've talked to which is interesting because while in Florida registered democrats outnumber registered republicans, the majority of their elected officials are republican.

I think what many commentators (including the ones in this thread) seem to miss is that the vast majority of the American public is not the so-called bleeding left crybaby snowflakes nor the extreme right but middle of the road centrists who lean left on some issues and right on others. The true Trumpists and true snowflakes are each in a small minority. The centre is giving Trump a chance but, like the the Reddit commentator, people are starting to question his abilities and intentions based on exactly those items which are mentioned in the article.

:cheers:
 
Most of my American friends, from the leftest liberal to the rightest Republican, are left exhausted, heads spinning, wondering what the heck happened (I don't have any alt-right friends, for obvious reasons). Things seem have to gotten out of hand so fast.

It feels like I'm living in bizarro world. I'm torn between the all-out panic of the left and the strained-smile "it's all fine! it's all fine!" of the right.
 
tomahawk6 said:
Read Legal Insurrection to get a feel for facts instead of the fakery of the left. Obama did the same type of EO to temporrily block Iraq refugee's. There is no ban on muslims if you read the EO but there is a 90 day ban of people from 7 middle eastern countries. By the way the web site is run by Professor Jacobson of Cornell Law.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/01/most-claims-about-trumps-visa-executive-order-are-false-or-misleading/

Most claims about Trump’s visa Executive Order are false or misleading
And, for the first time I've seen it, the EO's now up on the whitehouse.gov page - here it is as a bit of fodder for the discussion here:
EXECUTIVE ORDER: PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES

EXECUTIVE ORDER

- - - - - - -

Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States

    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:

    Section 1.  Purpose.  The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States.  Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans.  And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.

    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 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.

    Sec. 2.  Policy.  It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.

    Sec. 3.  Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern.  (a)  The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.

    (b)  The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President a report on the results of the review described in subsection (a) of this section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security's determination of the information needed for adjudications and a list of countries that do not provide adequate information, within 30 days of the date of this order.  The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a copy of the report to the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence.

    (c)  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 to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (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).

    (d)  Immediately upon receipt of the report described in subsection (b) of this section regarding the information needed for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request all foreign governments that do not supply such information to start providing such information regarding their nationals within 60 days of notification.

    (e)  After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section 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.

    (f)  At any point after submitting the list described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security may submit to the President the names of any additional countries recommended for similar treatment.

    (g)  Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.

    (h)  The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall submit to the President a joint report on the progress in implementing this order within 30 days of the date of this order, a second report within 60 days of the date of this order, a third report within 90 days of the date of this order, and a fourth report within 120 days of the date of this order.

    Sec. 4.  Implementing Uniform Screening Standards for All Immigration Programs.  (a)  The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall implement a program, as part of the adjudication process for immigration benefits, to identify individuals seeking to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of causing harm subsequent to their admission. This program will include the development of a uniform screening standard and procedure, such as in-person interviews; a database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended application forms that include questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to ensure that the applicant is who the applicant claims to be; a process to evaluate the applicant's likelihood of becoming a positively contributing member of society and the applicant's ability to make contributions to the national interest; and a mechanism to assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to commit criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States.

    (b)  The Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of this directive within 60 days of the date of this order, a second report within 100 days of the date of this order, and a third report within 200 days of the date of this order.

    Sec. 5.  Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017.  (a)  The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days.  During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall 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.  Refugee applicants who are already in the USRAP process may be admitted upon the initiation and completion of these revised procedures.  Upon the date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only for nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.

    (b)  Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize 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.  Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.

    (c)  Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim 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.

    (d)  Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions would be in the national interest.

    (e)  Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest -- including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.

    (f)  The Secretary of State shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of the directive in subsection (b) of this section regarding prioritization of claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution within 100 days of the date of this order and shall submit a second report within 200 days of the date of this order.

    (g)  It is the policy of the executive branch that, to the extent permitted by law and as practicable, State and local jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining the placement or settlement in their jurisdictions of aliens eligible to be admitted to the United States as refugees.  To that end, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall examine existing law to determine the extent to which, consistent with applicable law, State and local jurisdictions may have greater involvement in the process of determining the placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and shall devise a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement.

    Sec. 6.  Rescission of Exercise of Authority Relating to the Terrorism Grounds of Inadmissibility.  The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the Attorney General, consider rescinding the exercises of authority in section 212 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182, relating to the terrorism grounds of inadmissibility, as well as any related implementing memoranda.

    Sec. 7.  Expedited Completion of the Biometric Entry-Exit Tracking System.  (a)  The Secretary of Homeland Security shall expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking system for all travelers to the United States, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

    (b)  The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President periodic reports on the progress of the directive contained in subsection (a) of this section.  The initial report shall be submitted within 100 days of the date of this order, a second report shall be submitted within 200 days of the date of this order, and a third report shall be submitted within 365 days of the date of this order.  Further, the Secretary shall submit a report every 180 days thereafter until the system is fully deployed and operational.

    Sec. 8.  Visa Interview Security.  (a)  The Secretary of State shall immediately suspend the Visa Interview Waiver Program and ensure compliance with section 222 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1222, which requires that all individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa undergo an in-person interview, subject to specific statutory exceptions.

    (b)  To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary of State shall immediately expand the Consular Fellows Program, including by substantially increasing the number of Fellows, lengthening or making permanent the period of service, and making language training at the Foreign Service Institute available to Fellows for assignment to posts outside of their area of core linguistic ability, to ensure that non-immigrant visa-interview wait times are not unduly affected.

    Sec. 9.  Visa Validity Reciprocity.  The Secretary of State shall review all nonimmigrant visa reciprocity agreements to ensure that they are, with respect to each visa classification, truly reciprocal insofar as practicable with respect to validity period and fees, as required by sections 221(c) and 281 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(c) and 1351, and other treatment.  If a country does not treat United States nationals seeking nonimmigrant visas in a reciprocal manner, the Secretary of State shall adjust the visa validity period, fee schedule, or other treatment to match the treatment of United States nationals by the foreign country, to the extent practicable.

    Sec. 10.  Transparency and Data Collection.  (a)  To be more transparent with the American people, and to more effectively implement policies and practices that serve the national interest, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent with applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly available within 180 days, and every 180 days thereafter:

(i)  information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been charged with terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; or removed from the United States based on terrorism-related activity, affiliation, or material support to a terrorism-related organization, or any other national security reasons since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later;

(ii)  information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States and engaged in terrorism-related acts, or who have provided material support to terrorism-related organizations in countries that pose a threat to the United States, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and

(iii)  information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including honor killings, in the United States by foreign nationals, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and

(iv)  any other information relevant to public safety and security as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, including information on the immigration status of foreign nationals charged with major offenses.

    (b)  The Secretary of State shall, within one year of the date of this order, provide a report on the estimated long-term costs of the USRAP at the Federal, State, and local levels.

    Sec. 11.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)  the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

    (b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

    (c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP
 
George Wallace said:
....With the exception of who actually originated that list.

Ok; I forgot link... Sorry with eyes etc posting can be agitating...all over Montreal News outlets that day...and believe on CTV news,
I keep telling CNN, FOX etc, the catch coin phrase, "The Most Trusted Name in News" derives from Lloyd Robertson, and used
in Canada long before CNN the most trust name in tabloid recycled news.

I'll be back with link???


This in not the source I used however same 6 days ago on CBC, CTV, etc. was also on CJAD 800 mtl facebook

Hold on link?????

CJAD 800 Montreal
January 25 at 9:08am ·
Donald Trump is expected to sign an executive order today to move ahead with his proposed ban on Muslim immigration. The order could include a temporary ban on most refugees and a block on any visas at all being issued for people from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. How do you feel about Donald Trump moving ahead with his proposed immigration ban?


on the 24th Jan CNBC Trump expected to sign executive orders on immigration, therefore everyone was warned this would unfold 5 -6  days ago

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/24/trump-to-restrict-immigration-from-several-middle-east-countries-reuters.html

C.U
 
Dimsum said:
Taking a bit of a sidetrack, there was an interesting comment on Reddit today (and hit the "Best Of" thread) about how US military (Officers noted here but I'm sure the NCM side isn't much different) are viewing all of this. 
https://np.reddit.com/r/Military/comments/5qufgb/executive_order_removes_chairman_joint_chiefs_of/dd30zmm/

Thank-you for posting that, Dimsum.

FJAG said:
The centre is giving Trump a chance but, like the the Reddit commentator, people are starting to question his abilities and intentions based on exactly those items which are mentioned in the article.

:goodpost:

Mon Jan 30, 2017

REUTERS

Wall Street falls the most this year as Trump honeymoon sours
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks-idUSKBN15E1B2
Major U.S. stock indexes posted their largest drop so far in 2017 on Monday as investors worried that a curb on immigration ordered by Donald Trump was a reminder that some of the U.S. president's policies are not market-friendly.

It was the largest daily percentage drop for the Dow since October, while the S&P and Nasdaq dropped the most since late December.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top