Exclusive: Trump Expected to Order Temporary Ban on Refugees

a reply to: theantediluvian

You make good points, however, there's another facet to this which you and so many people seem to overlook, I guess because its rarely discussed in the MSM.

That facet has to do with the huge costs to local communities that are having to absorb these refugees. It might well be that with so many local governments screaming they are going broke that Trump and company have heard that call and seek to stop the bleed of cash. Many local school districts report being literally overwhelmed.

Taking in legit refugees is one thing, but this has been out of control under Obama.

a reply to: theantediluvian

How many terrorist attacks on US soil in the last eight years wouldn't have occurred if these bans were in place?

Between San Bernadino and Orlando thats 75 people shot and killed.

Of course the liberal logic is just to ban 'assault weapons'.

And ban those black things.

That's getting real.

Excellent news

American needs to keep Muslims out, they're a ticking time bomb in any society, we British have tried for 40/50yrs to accommodate and intergrat with Muslims

It hasn't worked

They have strict rules to not socialise with British people, unless they convert to Islam, the bigger there communities grow the more violent and arrogant they become, they then refuse the countries rules and laws and begin to push Islam on others

They protest and riot against the government and begin to set up Sharia courts in there communities and make areas Muslim only enforced sharia law zones

Islam does not integrate into western society or any other, never has, never will

This is many peoples observations who have grown up there entire life near small now very large Muslim communities

The government ignores all the problems in hope that one day the problems will go away, they're scared to offend them and do not act

The problems we have seen in Europe are going to continue to worsen, America should stay well clear of importing this time bomb and move towards forcing Muslims to integrate or go home or back to a Muslim country to practise there backwards religion

Western countries should not be welcoming Islam, they should respectfully decline any more who seek to migrate

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
While I agree with this, the thing that troubles me is the next group that attacks the US will not be entering as refugee's.

They'll be bought in on special planes having been trained in Oman, Kuwait or Saudi.

They'll need no visa's, they'll go through no immigration.

Do you not understand the people that orchestrate the major world events, ie Iraq War, ISIS, Libya are above the government and police.

And who
Would be bringing them in on social planes? Aren't you confusing Prez Trump and Prez O?

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: JinMI

I just want people to remember that Trump won't be president forever, and when the opposition is in power again, guess who's names go on those lists?

It's wrong to support listing citizens no matter which political aisle you sit on, because those same lists will eventually be used against everybody.

Trump supporters included.

So let terrorist into your country? Incase 1 day you become one?

That makes no sense to people who do not have radical beliefs and want to stomp out terrorism 9nce and for all.

Nowhere in anything I wrote was I talking about letting terrorists into the country. I'm talking about domestic lists of citizens that the government classifies as threats.

If I have to give up safety for more freedom, so be it.

I don't think anywhere in Trump's order did he mention a domestic list of citizens. He was talking about citizens of countries were there is an insane amount of senseless violence by religious extremists.

What's wrong with that?

Liberals forget that it was a Democrat Prez who first stemmed the tide of immigrants coming in through Ellis Island,then they call conservatives racist fascist for wanting to stop people entering illegally. For them it's whatever serves their most recent Agenda. The Syrian refugee crisis was engineered.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: shooterbrody

Unless I am mistaken (completely possible), I thought this line of logic was being followed in the thread.

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.

Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson did not rule out the possibility of a Muslim registry during his confirmation hearing earlier this month, but clarified that if established, it would also extend "to other groups" that are threats to the U.S.

My take on it is that the pro Muslim group CAIR might be in crosshairs. After all they are funded by Soros.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: Snarl

He's wasting no time.. Getting # done while people are still trying to accept that he's the president.

You are correct!

Best time to get your strikes in is when the opponent is stunned to get their #e together!

Between San Bernadino and Orlando thats 75 people shot and killed.

Those were both committed by legal american citizens, not refugees.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

And Saudi Arabia, well actually it was linked to Bin Laden before 9/11 and under FBI monitoring.

originally posted by: LordAhriman
Those were both committed by legal american citizens, not refugees.

It's okay to call them Radical Islamic Terrorists now. Remember President Trump doing that in his inauguration speech?

The wonderful words are strongly expressed between :37 and :45.

I'M always baffled at to why so many American are so scared of terrorism as to give away their freedom for the sake of supposed security. Statistically,there is far more chance you'll die from a heart attack ,cancer,car accident etc. In fact there is far more chances of middle eastern citizen particularly in iraq,palestine,syria etc dying in state sponsored terrorism than any american has of being killed by a terrorist.

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: LordAhriman
Those were both committed by legal american citizens, not refugees.

It's okay to call them Radical Islamic Terrorists now. Remember President Trump doing that in his inauguration speech?

The wonderful words are strongly expressed between :37 and :45.

My point was that these weren't refugees. Nothing that Trump is doing would have stopped any act of Islamic terror on our soil in recent history, and it won't stop any future terrorism.

a reply to: TritonTaranis

The US has several advantages over the UK when it comes to elements of Islam. Our constitution prevents a government endorsed religion / government enforced elements of a religion / prohibition on religion being used as a basis for law. The city council in Dearborn MI recently learned very quickly what they can and cannot do when they wanted to push a dress code for women. The state told them in no uncertain terms to knock it off or they will get involved.

We have laws that prevent the muslim patrols talked about in other countries.

To be completely honest though in my experience I have not come across any Muslims who subscribe to the strict interpretations nor have I ever experienced any tensions between the muslim community and the community at large. If anything I have seen the community come together to protect and support each other. Granted it may not be like this everywhere.

The sharia law thing will never occur.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Let's get real here folks. What's the point of this ban?

Preventative measures.
In case you haven't been paying attention but the majority of the attacks in the EU are from a "refugee". Just because many of our terror attacks are home grown doesn't make it a bad idea to have proper regulation in place to prevent things like this from happening in the future...

I'll tow your line...
"But racism!"

I want to totally set aside the righteousness, wisdom, and practicality of the immigration freeze itself. Instead, allow me to play the devil's advocate.

Let's say I agree completely with this freeze, because however uncertain, it at least has the potential to safeguard American lives. Let's say I view each of those countries as hotbeds of violent, anti-American sentiment and radicalism, unstable governments, and the propensity to export terror to our shores. And let's say I don't want an exemption for humanitarian concerns (beyond the one included, by which religious minorities - which will translate effectively to Christians - will be granted some leniency.) And let's say I in particular love that those who do come in will be questioned about various things, among them their views on women and equality.

That being the case, I would definitely want certain countries on this list, because it would simply be logical to include them, right? The greatest source of Wahhabism in the world, a country that effectively allows what basically amounts to the ownership of women (given those questions during vetting, you'd think this would matter,) is less secular than Iran, and the home of the bin Laden family, you would think would be among them.

But... it isn't.

Saudi Arabia is nowhere to be found on this list. The government of Saudi Arabia benefits both directly and indirectly from the very groups we are trying to ostensibly stop from coming into the country with this ban... yet... they are not on the list.

Elements within Turkey surreptitiously allowed the sale of ISIS controlled oil within its borders, Turkey is an unstable government rife with coup attempts and, yes, terrorist attacks on a regular basis... yet... they are not on the list.

Qatar has Sharia law... the thing we're ostensibly trying to prevent being instituted here, in addition to preventing attacks... homosexuality there is punishable by death, and their counter-terrorism efforts have been described as lax due to their not wishing to appear aligned with U.S. interests. Yet... they are not on the list.

What do these countries have in common? They are all leading recipients of U.S. arms sales, and in the case of Saudi Arabia, linchpins and pillars of the petrodollar.

I'm trying hard to play the devil's advocate but... it rings a bit hollow in terms of motives. Especially when countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Lebanon, and others who have literally exported terrorists who carried out deadly attacks since 9-11... aren't on the list.

Again, I'm not even talking about whether I concur with the soundness of the idea of a freeze on immigration. Just about its targets and, more glaringly, those not targeted by it.

It's the same question I have about his stance towards our allies and enemies. They have been sending a very clear signal that they expect our allies to pay their dues, pick up slack, have our backs, and support us in our foreign policy and ideology on the world stage from now on. Okay... so is that going to include pressure on Saudi Arabia to change how it governs? How it treats women? Its support of Wahhabism? And if not 1) why not and 2) shouldn't they at least be on the list in that case?

Usual disclaimer: not an Obama or Hillary supporter, and giving Trump a window of benefit of the doubt as I do all presidents.

Peace.