All Forums | Politics

Federal judge stays deportations after Trump's order barring refugees, migrants causes outrage

Participants:
Search
Views: 3486
Posts: 86
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2004
Posts: 4590
Posted: #1
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-trump-travel-ban-emergency-stay-20170128-story.html

By Jerry Markon, Emma Brown, Katherine Shaver
The Washington Post

A federal judge in New York blocked deportations nationwide late Saturday of those detained on entry to the United States after an executive order from President Donald Trump targeted citizens from seven predominantly Muslim countries.

Judge Ann Donnelly of the U.S. District Court in Brooklyn granted a request from the American Civil Liberties Union to stop the deportations after determining that the risk of injury to those detained by being returned to their home countries necessitated the decision.

Minutes after the judge's ruling in New York, another came in Virginia when U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema issued a temporary restraining order to block for seven days the removal of any green-card holders being detained at Dulles International Airport. Brinkema's action also ordered that lawyers have access to those held there because of the ban.

Trump's order reverberated across the world Saturday, making it increasingly clear that the measure he had promised during his presidential campaign was casting a wider net than even his opponents had feared.

Confusion and concern among immigrant advocates mounted throughout the day as travelers from the Middle East were detained at U.S. airports or sent home. A lawsuit filed on behalf of two Iraqi men challenged Trump's executive action, which was signed Friday and initially cast as applying to refugees and migrants.

But as the day progressed, administration officials confirmed that the sweeping order also targeted U.S. legal residents from the named countries - green-card holders - who were abroad when it was signed. Also subject to being barred entry into the United States are dual nationals, or people born in one of the seven countries who hold passports even from U.S. allies, such as the United Kingdom.

The virtually unprecedented measures triggered harsh reactions from not only Democrats and others who typically advocate for immigrants but also key sectors of the U.S. business community. Leading technology companies recalled scores of overseas employees and sharply criticized the president. Legal experts forecast a wave of litigation over the order, calling it unconstitutional. Canada announced it would accept asylum applications from U.S. green-card holders.

Yet Trump, who centered his campaign in part on his vow to crack down on illegal immigrants and impose what became known as his "Muslim ban,'' was unbowed. As White House officials insisted that the measure strengthens national security, the president stood squarely behind it.

"It's not a Muslim ban, but we were totally prepared," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. "You see it at the airports, you see it all over. It's working out very nicely, and we're going to have a very, very strict ban, and we're going to have extreme vetting, which we should have had in this country for many years."

In New York, Donnelly seemed to have little patience for the government's arguments, which focused heavily on the fact that the two defendants named in the lawsuit had already been released.

Donnelly noted that those detained were suffering mostly from the bad fortune of traveling while the ban went into effect. "Our own government presumably approved their entry to the country," she said at one point, noting that, had it been two days prior, those detained would have been granted admission without question.

During the hearing, ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt informed the court that he had received word of a deportation to Syria, scheduled within the hour. That prompted Donnelly to ask if the government could assure that the person would not suffer irreparable harm. Receiving no such assurance, she granted the stay to the broad group included in the ACLU's request.

A senior Department of Homeland Security official had no comment about the rulings late Saturday and said the department was consulting with its lawyers.

The official said enforcement of the president's order on Saturday had created minimal disruption, given that only a small number of the several hundred thousand travelers arriving at U.S. airports daily had been affected.

Nationwide, he said, 109 people had been denied entry into the United States. All had been in transit when Trump signed the order, and some had already departed the United States on flights by late Saturday while others were still being detained awaiting flights. Also, 173 people had not been allowed to board U.S.-bound planes at foreign airports.

The official said that officers doing case-by-case reviews had granted 81 waivers so far to green-card holders.

DHS began implementing the president's order immediately after he signed it, according to the official. He declined to say whether the department had an operational plan ready at that time.

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2004
Posts: 4590
Posted: #2
Though several congressional Republicans denounced the order, the majority remained silent, and a few voiced crucial support - including, most prominently, House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., who had rejected Trump's anti-Muslim proposals during the campaign. "This is not a religious test, and it is not a ban on people of any religion,'' Ryan said Saturday. "This order does not affect the vast majority of Muslims in the world."

The president's order, signed Friday, suspends admission to the United States of all refugees for 120 days and bars for 90 days the entry of any citizen from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia. That list excludes several majority-Muslim nations - notably Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and Indonesia - where the Trump Organization, now run by the president's adult sons, is active and which in some cases have also faced troublesome issues with terrorism.

According to the text of the order, the restriction applies to countries that have already been excluded from programs allowing people to travel to the United States without a visa because of terrorism concerns. Hewing closely to nations already named as terrorism concerns elsewhere in law might have allowed the White House to avoid angering powerful and wealthy majority-Muslim allies, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Amid widespread confusion on Saturday about how the order will be enforced, some administration officials acknowledged that its rollout had been chaotic. Officials tried to reassure travelers and their families, pointing out that green-card holders in the United States will not be affected and noting that the DHS is allowed to grant waivers to those individuals and others deemed to not pose a security threat. It can take years for someone to become a green-card holder, or lawful permanent resident authorized to permanently live and work in the country.

"If you've been living in the United States for 15 years and you own a business and your family is here, will you be granted a waiver? I'm assuming yes, but we are working that out,'' said one official, who could not be more specific because details remained so cloudy. A senior White House official later said that waivers will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and that green-card holders in the United States will have to meet with a consular officer before leaving the country.

But officials made clear that the federal officers detaining refugees and migrants with valid U.S. visas and restricting them from entering the country were following orders handed down by top DHS officials, at the White House's behest.

The order drew outrage from a range of activist and advocates for Muslims, Arabs and immigrants. More than 4,000 academics from universities nationwide signed a statement of opposition and voiced concern the ban would become permanent. They described it as discriminatory and "inhumane, ineffective and un-American."

The executive action has caused "complete chaos" and torn apart families, said Abed Ayoub, legal and policy director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

At Dulles, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) addressed more than 100 people protesting Trump's order. He said: "I remind everybody we are a land of immigrants. . . . Discriminatory tactics breed hatred.''

In New York, lawyers for two Iraqi men detained at John F. Kennedy International Airport - one of whom served the U.S. military mission in Iraq - filed a federal lawsuit challenging the order as unconstitutional.

One of the men, Hameed Khalid Darweesh, was released Saturday afternoon without explanation from federal officials. "This is the humanity, this is the soul of America,'' he told reporters. "This is what pushed me to move, to leave my country and come here. . . . America is the land of freedom - the land of freedom, the land of the right.''

Other advocates promised further legal challenges. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) denounced the order and said it would file a lawsuit challenging it as unconstitutional.

In a conference call with reporters, immigration lawyers and advocates said Trump's order violated the Constitution, along with U.S. and international laws that guarantee migrants the right to apply for asylum at the border and the Immigration and Nationality Act, which forbids discrimination in the issuance of visas based on race, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.

But Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for lower immigration levels, praised Trump.

"It's a prudent measure," he said. "It's not the end of the world. It's not the Statue of Liberty crying. The reaction has been hyperbolic."
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2004
Posts: 4590
Posted: #3
The effects of Trump's order played out nationwide.

In Dallas, Behzad Honarjou, 43, was supposed to pick up his mother, 70-year-old Shahin Haffanpour, at the airport on Saturday. But when she arrived from Iran via Dubai, she was told that because of the executive order she would be sent back to Iran the next morning.

"I don't know what to do," Honarjou said. He said he was seeking an attorney to file an emergency habeas petition, but the courts were closed. Haffanpour has an immigrant's visa issued by the U.S. Embassy in Ankara, Turkey, last year.

In Philadelphia, Sarah Assali said six relatives from Syria - two uncles, their wives and two cousins - were detained after arriving at the airport there early Saturday. Although they are Christian immigrants with valid visas to join family in this country, they were put on a plane back to Doha, Qatar, three hours later, Assali said.

She said her family members were not allowed to call or contact their family in the United States before being removed. "We don't know what's going to happen next."

Philip Bump in Brooklyn, Louisa Loveluck in Beirut, and David Nakamura, Philip Rucker, Mike DeBonis, Lori Aratani, Carol Morello and Rachel Weiner in Washington contributed to this report.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2004
Posts: 4590
Posted: #4
Quote Originally Posted by Sabanesque:

Wow.

That affects maybe 100-300 people who were en  route. That excited probably 5,000 two bit "immigration" lawyers to rush over there.

The ban is still in effect. 

The President has authority to do this, and NO judge can halt the ban on these countries.

This ruling, does not affect the ban. But it excites leftists and lawbreakers and anarchists.



what do Leftists have to do with the judge's decision ?
The US is a country of laws. 

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (H.R. 2580; Pub.L. 89–236, 79 Stat. 911, enacted June 30, 1968), also known as the Hart–Celler Act, changed the way quotas were allocated by ending the National Origins Formula that had been in place in the United States since the Emergency Quota Act of 1921. Representative Emanuel Celler of New York proposed the bill, Senator Philip Hart of Michigan co-sponsored it, and Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts helped to promote it.

The Hart–Celler Act abolished the quota system based on national origins that had been American immigration policy since the 1920s. The new law maintained the per-country limits, but it also created preference visa categories that focused on immigrants' skills and family relationships with citizens or U.S. residents. The bill set numerical restrictions on visas at 170,000 per year, with a per-country-of-origin quota. However, immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and "special immigrants" had no restrictions.

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2004
Posts: 4590
Posted: #5
Quote Originally Posted by Sabanesque:


Obama was sued just about every day. Doesn't change the fact that the President has the authority by Constitutional LAW to make sweeping executive changes regarding FOREIGN entry to the United States. 

You're wrong ..

there are 3 branches of government
Congress and the White House share authority to decide 
eligibility for citizenship and entry into the country.
Trump can't do it alone nor can he break any laws while doing it
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2004
Posts: 4590
Posted: #6
@Sabanesque you want to talk about law breakers

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/05/trumps-wife-worked-illegally-during-her-first-weeks-in-us-documents-show.html

WASHINGTON –  Melania Trump was paid for 10 modeling jobs in the United States worth $20,056 that occurred in the seven weeks before she had legal permission to work in the country, according to detailed accounting ledgers, contracts and related documents from 20 years ago provided to The Associated Press.

 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2015
Posts: 21593
Posted: #7

and so the appeals go to where John Roberts court.

if they feel this case should even be heard.

so a man takes another man and removes them.

a court which will never convene can over rule them.

it becomes such the fate as the president will always pardon them

pardon me for asking but it seems

a big boo hoo to tasking my mind and wit

so its legit but msnbc says so just keep asking

 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2002
Posts: 22961
Posted: #8
Quote Originally Posted by Sabanesque:

 But, as stated earlier, the President--by LAW-- can temporarily ban, say, Norwegians from entering the US because they "hunt too many whales"....if he wants to.

If that's the case, then I say let every Norwegian on the planet in, and send them to Disney World.

I've been to Disney World, and it is full of whales.
I don't know if it's those huge turkey legs they sell there that attracts them, but whales definitely congregate at Disney World for some reason.

I remember as a kid, standing on a line in 100 degree heat for over an hour to get on the "It's a small world" ride, surrounded by sweaty whales who kept infringing into my space with their whaleness. All I could think of was that we needed some Norwegians there 
bigreds daddy
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2015
Posts: 21593
Posted: #9

their was a pub outside of Glasgow.

a man came up to table, said where ya lasses fum.

the leader of the group stated , We are fine wales ladies, good day

shot down went back to his group

of ruffians.

came back stated the lads ought to know where ya wales from?

 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2010
Posts: 8480
Posted: #10
Quote Originally Posted by ilsp2003:

The president's order, signed Friday, suspends admission to the United States of all refugees for 120 days and bars for 90 days the entry of any citizen from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia. That list excludes several majority-Muslim nations - notably Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and Indonesia - where the Trump Organization, now run by the president's adult sons, is active and which in some cases have also faced troublesome issues with terrorism.

According to the text of the order, the restriction applies to countries that have already been excluded from programs allowing people to travel to the United States without a visa because of terrorism concerns. Hewing closely to nations already named as terrorism concerns elsewhere in law might have allowed the White House to avoid angering powerful and wealthy majority-Muslim allies, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia.


The countries listed on President Trump’s executive order come from the OBAMA ADMINISTRATIONS Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, which restricted people from Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Syria.

The Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 was expanded upon January 2016, to include Libya, Somalia, and Yemen by the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION!

It's like the left wing media took ideas straight out of Mein Kampf.

The Ministry of Propaganda is the left wing media.

 
Covers Referee
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2004
Posts: 15759
Posted: #11
Quote Originally Posted by Sabanesque:

Wow.

That affects maybe 100-300 people who were en  route. That excited probably 5,000 two bit "immigration" lawyers to rush over there.

The ban is still in effect. 

The President has authority to do this, and NO judge can halt the ban on these countries.

This ruling, does not affect the ban. But it excites leftists and lawbreakers and anarchists.



I'm not sure which false statement to correct. 

No, the US President cannot circumvent (you will likely need to look that up) the Constitution. 

When the US infringes upon an individual right, no matter how small the number (and it is far more than a few hundred people), the Judicial Branch not only can, but must determine if the US, acting under color of law, violated a right. In this case, people who properly had followed the channels of the visa program, are being denied admission. 

They, being those who properly followed the channel of law, have numerous protections through the judicial process (ex post facto, etc.). 

I might also add that some of these people are escaping because they actually assisted the US and have become political refugees. 

One would think the right wing might understand that. 
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2002
Posts: 22961
Posted: #12
The left should have greater concerns than this topic.
They should worry about the Congressional Review Act, or CRA.

Trump has shown the Obama administration how easily executive orders can be written, and undo previous executive orders ... but the CRA can undo executive orders forever ... which will most likely wipe everything Obama did off the planet, never to return. 

The party on the left should stop wasting time complaining about Trump, and start focusing some productive efforts towards gaining some control back in the midterms 
bigreds daddy
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2002
Posts: 22961
Posted: #13
B!tch when it is the right ... but ignore it when it is the left ...


Don't hate the player, hate the game 
bigreds daddy
 
Covers Referee
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2004
Posts: 15759
Posted: #14
Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Jorgan:

B!tch when it is the right ... but ignore it when it is the left ...


Don't hate the player, hate the game 

Kind of like how you attack perceived liberals for things but ignore it when it is from your 'right' side. 

You are only partially right. Here is a very good summary of what happened, be it 'right' or 'left.'

https://heavy.com/news/2017/01/barack-obama-ban-refugees-did-iraq-iraqi-muslim-trump-jimmy-carter-iran-iranian-immigration/
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2004
Posts: 4590
Posted: #15
Quote Originally Posted by MoneySRH:


The countries listed on President Trump’s executive order come from the OBAMA ADMINISTRATIONS Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, which restricted people from Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Syria.

The Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 was expanded upon January 2016, to include Libya, Somalia, and Yemen by the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION!

It's like the left wing media took ideas straight out of Mein Kampf.

The Ministry of Propaganda is the left wing media.


Nationals from those countries are not covered under the Visa Waiver Program, which allows many people to travel to the US without a visa. 
It just means that these nationals must get a visa. They were not banned.

According to US Customs and Border Protection

https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/visa-waiver-program/visa-waiver-program-improvement-and-terrorist-travel-prevention-act-faq

 
What is the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015? Why is it necessary to once again expand the amount of ESTA information being collected from VWP travelers?

DHS remains concerned about the risks posed by the situation in Syria and Iraq, where instability has attracted thousands of foreign fighters, including many from VWP countries. Such individuals could travel to the United States for operational purposes on their own or at the behest of violent extremist groups.

The U.S. Congress shares this concern, and on December 18, 2015, the President signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2016, which includes the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 (the Act). The Act, among other things, establishes new eligibility requirements for travel under the VWP. These new eligibility requirements do not bar travel to the United States. Instead, a traveler who does not meet the requirements must obtain a visa for travel to the United States, which generally includes an in-person interview at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate.

DHS has updated the ESTA application with additional questions to address the new eligibility requirements under the Act.


What do I do if I fall under one of the VWP travel restrictions under the new Act?

The restrictions do not bar travel to the United States, but they do require a traveler covered by the restrictions in the law to obtain a visa from a U.S. Embassy or Consulate.  Most U.S. Embassies and Consulates in VWP partner countries and worldwide have short wait times for visa interviews.  Please visit travel.state.gov for general visa information or usembassy.gov to find the website of the Embassy that has jurisdiction over your residence.

If you are applying for a nonimmigrant visa after ESTA denial or revocation as a result of the new Act, and have imminent business, medical, or humanitarian travel to the United States you may request an expedited visa appointment.

Visas have some advantages over the ESTA, including validity for up to 10 years versus a general two years for ESTA, and the option to stay in the Unites States for up to six months at a time, as opposed to up to 90 days under the VWP.  Visa travelers generally may also extend their stay beyond six months or seek to change to a different visa class while in the United States, neither of which is allowed under the VWP.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2004
Posts: 4590
Posted: #16
Obama administration rolls out new visa waiver program rules in wake of terror attacks

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/01/21/obama-administration-rolls-out-new-visa-waiver-program-rules-in-wake-of-terror-attacks/?utm_term=.ed7f9fb89ebc
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2004
Posts: 4590
Posted: #17

What are the new eligibility requirements for Visa Waiver Program (VWP) travel that will be added to the ESTA application in June 2016?

Under the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 (the Act), and DHS’s implementation of it, nationals of VWP countries who have traveled to, or been present in, Libya, Somalia, or Yemen on or after March 1, 2011, are no longer eligible for travel or admission to the United States under the VWP.

This restriction does not apply to VWP travelers whose presence in Libya, Somalia, or Yemen was to perform military service in the armed forces of a program country, or in order to carry out official duties as a full-time employee of the government of a program country.  We recommend those who have traveled to the three countries listed above for military/official purposes bring with them appropriate documentation when traveling through a U.S. port of entry.

The vast majority of VWP-eligible travelers will not be affected by these additional restrictions made under the Act. 

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2004
Posts: 4590
Posted: #18
as many as 40 individuals with F1 student visas, many who left the country for winter break, were told their visas were revoked when they returned stateside to resume classes.

One of the individuals left the country on Jan. 3 and his visa was revoked on Jan. 4, one immigration official confirmed.

Some students who ran into visa problems are not from the countries listed in Trump's executive order. Instead, they hold passports from places like Saudi Arabia, Jordan

 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2002
Posts: 22961
Posted: #19
DJ,

My comment in regards to complaining when it is the right, but not when it is the left, was directed solely at the OP, and it is 100% undebatable.

As for the link I provided, I believe it to be in agreement with the link you provided.

I offered no opinion as to the reasons of the bans, length of the bans, extent of the bans, or ramifications of the bans. I merely pointed out that there was no cries of injustice when Obama banned some Muslims.

Lastly, your continued assertion that my opinions originate from a place on the right are based in a flawed perception. I take no umbrage with it, as I do not perceive it to be an insult, but that does not make it any less flawed.

I supported Clinton in '92
I defended Obama on '08, albeit not staunchly.
I am adamantly pro choice.
I 100% disagree with Trump's ban on Muslims.

Not exactly the resume of a right winger.

My issues that I make within this forum are directed at liberals, only because I perceive them as being the party of name calling, and whining. I do not disagree with all the policies that come from the left, but I do disagree with the manner in which the left reacts to not getting their way. The right is also guilty of this, but in my view it is not nearly as rampant as the manner in which the left has behaved.

And it will come as a surprise to no one that my largest issue with politics is the MSM.

With that said ... how am I still free to roam the forums?
I've been out for 12 hours already, I must have pissed someone off by now ... no? 

bigreds daddy
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2004
Posts: 4590
Posted: #20
Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Jorgan:

DJ,

My comment in regards to complaining when it is the right, but not when it is the left, was directed solely at the OP, and it is 100% undebatable.

As for the link I provided, I believe it to be in agreement with the link you provided.

I offered no opinion as to the reasons of the bans, length of the bans, extent of the bans, or ramifications of the bans. I merely pointed out that there was no cries of injustice when Obama banned some Muslims.

Lastly, your continued assertion that my opinions originate from a place on the right are based in a flawed perception. I take no umbrage with it, as I do not perceive it to be an insult, but that does not make it any less flawed.

I supported Clinton in '92
I defended Obama on '08, albeit not staunchly.
I am adamantly pro choice.
I 100% disagree with Trump's ban on Muslims.

Not exactly the resume of a right winger.

My issues that I make within this forum are directed at liberals, only because I perceive them as being the party of name calling, and whining. I do not disagree with all the policies that come from the left, but I do disagree with the manner in which the left reacts to not getting their way. The right is also guilty of this, but in my view it is not nearly as rampant as the manner in which the left has behaved.

And it will come as a surprise to no one that my largest issue with politics is the MSM.

With that said ... how am I still free to roam the forums?
I've been out for 12 hours already, I must have pissed someone off by now ... no? 


Can you prove that you supported Clinton in 92 and you defended Obama in 2008 ? 

This thread is not about you , will never be 
You are entitled to your opinions, which are not facts.

It's funny that you are accusing "liberals" of  being the "party of names calling"

About you still being free to roam the forums ... 
I am really struggling to understand why you are still allowed to post here . Your PB childish antics leave a lot to be desired. "Liberal" mods must be very tolerant of you.
This thread is not about you. It's about Trump's immigration ban. 


 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2004
Posts: 4590
Posted: #21
For those of you comparing Obama's Visa Waiver Program (VWP  Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen) to Trump's immigration ban, VWP never banned muslims from coming to the US. VWP is used to ensure proper vetting of immigrants and refugees  from those 7 countries.
For instance , If anyone from those 7 countries went to Canada first , then decided to go the U.S , he or she would still be required to go through proper vetting the US immigration.
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2002
Posts: 22961
Posted: #22
Quote Originally Posted by ilsp2003:


Can you prove that you supported Clinton in 92 and you defended Obama in 2008 ? 

This thread is not about you , will never be 
You are entitled to your opinions, which are not facts.

It's funny that you are accusing "liberals" of  being the "party of names calling"

About you still being free to roam the forums ... 
I am really struggling to understand why you are still allowed to post here . Your PB childish antics leave a lot to be desired. "Liberal" mods must be very tolerant of you.
This thread is not about you. It's about Trump's immigration ban. 



But you just spoke directly to me, and about me, and only me.

Thus, you made this thread about me.

Thank you, I am flattered 
bigreds daddy
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2004
Posts: 4590
Posted: #23
Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Jorgan:


But you just spoke directly to me, and about me, and only me.

Thus, you made this thread about me.

Thank you, I am flattered 


dude you're hilarious 

Reminder : This thread is about Trump's immigration ban.


 
Covers Referee
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2004
Posts: 15759
Posted: #24
Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Jorgan:

DJ,

My comment in regards to complaining when it is the right, but not when it is the left, was directed solely at the OP, and it is 100% undebatable.

As for the link I provided, I believe it to be in agreement with the link you provided.

I offered no opinion as to the reasons of the bans, length of the bans, extent of the bans, or ramifications of the bans. I merely pointed out that there was no cries of injustice when Obama banned some Muslims.

Lastly, your continued assertion that my opinions originate from a place on the right are based in a flawed perception. I take no umbrage with it, as I do not perceive it to be an insult, but that does not make it any less flawed.

I supported Clinton in '92
I defended Obama on '08, albeit not staunchly.
I am adamantly pro choice.
I 100% disagree with Trump's ban on Muslims.

Not exactly the resume of a right winger.

My issues that I make within this forum are directed at liberals, only because I perceive them as being the party of name calling, and whining. I do not disagree with all the policies that come from the left, but I do disagree with the manner in which the left reacts to not getting their way. The right is also guilty of this, but in my view it is not nearly as rampant as the manner in which the left has behaved.

And it will come as a surprise to no one that my largest issue with politics is the MSM.

With that said ... how am I still free to roam the forums?
I've been out for 12 hours already, I must have pissed someone off by now ... no? 


That's fine but your post never stated your position, only pointed out the hypocrisies in others. 

As to that point, Obama never banned refugees, rather created a more stringent vetting process. Hard to disagree with his intent. 
 
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2002
Posts: 22961
Posted: #25
In post #19 there is a link which says that Obama banned refugees from Iraq for a period of 6 months.

I have no idea if the ban lasted the entire 6 months, but he definitely instituted the ban at one point in time.

This is not to say I am comparing Obama's 6 month ban and what Trump just did ... I'm not, and they are not even close. 

In my opinion, what Trump did in banning people from those 7 countries was terribly wrong, and while it is impossible to predict the long term ramifications, I'm not hopeful they will be positive for this country. 
It is certainly of concern.
bigreds daddy
All Forums | Politics
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gambling
Betting Sites
US Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Ultimate Race
Office Pools
The Covers community has
810,221
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 30 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
21+
Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER
Help Privacy Privacy Choices Terms of Service Cookies Sitemap Forum
Covers is verified safe by:
Evalon Logo Logo GPWA Logo GDPR logo Logo GeoTrust logo Logo
Covers Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2026 Genius Sports. All Rights Reserved.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.