Trump should sue MSM outlets

Anyone who visits here that does not support our laws and religious freedoms can change their plans and vacation in Somalia, or Syria, or Iran....

 

Nothing to do with my point. You claimed he got a majority. He didn't.

 

There is no such thing as "thoroughly vetted". How are you going to find which tourists do not support your laws and religious freedoms? Ironic that you state "religious freedoms"!

 

Called playing the odds.

People from terrorist hot spots and Muslims are going to be exponentially more likely to be dangerous.

Look at 2 of the recent terror attacks in San Bernardino and Ohio State. Both were Obama's guests. One from Pakistan, another a refugee from Somalia.

Best think of your own nation. I'd suggest joining the Britain First organization.

 

Even better, he should pleasure himself within night after night of hysterical tweets about the media (of which, as a television performer, he is a product), Constitutionalists, religious leaders, corporate America, defenders of higher education, military veterans, and the thousands and thousands of his imaginary people who do not worship him.

That his xenophobic indulgence failed to inconvenience a single terrorist is a point his enemies make just to upset him.

​

.

"That's my boy!"..........​

 

All very well but you still haven't answered how are you going to find which tourists do not support your laws and religious freedoms?

How are you going to stop those terrorists with fake Egyptian passports?

 

Trump supporters really hate the constitution don't they.....

 

In dont support Trump. Trump and i just happen to have the same agena and goals and so I encourage his actions in regards to goals.

Anyways big biased media chokes out smaller unbiased media and is destructive to free critical thinking and real speech.

The media doesnt represent the people. It controls the flow of information and opinion to the people in order to further its political agenda which happens to be globalist liberalism.

Real liberalism is presenting the data in all areas and letting people come to their own personal conclusions instead having the media decide what is best for the people to know because people arent smart enough to come to the correct conclusions on their own. They create bread crumb trails that lead people to the only right and complete truth that is the truth as interpreted by them.

 

It's unconstitutional and it violates the 1965 Immigration and Nationalization Act; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965

- - - Updated - - -

Some people are smart enough to understand the Constitution and the law; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965

 

Actually, Barry O. Picked these countries.

 

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

I imagine there would be a lot of backlash in the middle east against Saudi Arabia for continuing to do business with a country that is perceived as anti-Muslim. That could be strategic, and a boon, but what do I know? Would you feel better if he did place ban on those other countries?

The IRA? I didn't know they were still around. Regarding MS-13, I think that's part of the reason Trump wants to build a wall. Now you can feel good about it.

 

Every major Muslim terrorist attack in US history was committed either by legal residents who were radicalized while living in the US or people who came over using a visa. None have been committed by people who came in as refugees.

 

Oh well what an amazing difference.

Also, you're wrong.

The Ohio State attacker was a bona-fide refugee.

We've had a number of Somali refugees caught trying to join ISIS and al-shabab.

If you're going to make a claim at least check it.

 

(C) Waiver
The Secretary of Homeland Security may waive the application of subparagraph (A) to an alien if the Secretary determines that such a waiver is in the law enforcement or national security interests of the United States.
(D) Countries or areas of concern
(i) In general
Not later than 60 days after December 18, 2015, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall determine whether the requirement under subparagraph (A) shall apply to any other country or area.
(ii) CriteriaIn making a determination under clause (i), the Secretary shall consider—
(I) whether the presence of an alien in the country or area increases the likelihood that the alien is a credible threat to the national security of the United States;
(II) whether a foreign terrorist organization has a significant presence in the country or area; and
(III) whether the country or area is a safe haven for terrorists.
(iii) Annual review
The Secretary shall conduct a review, on an annual basis, of any determination made under clause (i).

 

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate”

 

You’ve missed (or evaded) the point. You can’t just turn up in court and say “I don’t like what they did. Give me money!”. You actually need based in established law to bring (let alone win) even a civil case. DO you have the slightest idea which actual law you believe Trump (or the government – that would be a key difference for a start) could base a suit on?

 

Perhaps Obama should sue Trump for stating that there was a list of countries to block travelers traveling from. Obama's list was a VISA waiver list:

The restrictions specifically limited what is known as visa-waiver travel by those who had visited one of the seven countries within the specified time period. People who previously could have entered the United States without a visa were instead required to apply for one if they had traveled to one of the seven countries.

Under the law, dual citizens of visa-waiver countries and Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria could no longer travel to the U.S. without a visa. Dual citizens of Libya, Somalia, and Yemen could, however, still use the visa-waiver program if they hadn't traveled to any of the seven countries after March 2011.

It is Trump who has cost you a lot of money including the 3% drop in the value of the dollar since his inauguration

 

Yes, to take off a VISA waiver program. They still could apply for a VISA. Not that long ago everyone had to apply for a VISA to travel to the US

 

If it's not a ban, then why did Trump call it a ban in his tweets?

 

The Visa Waiver list was based on an 'areas of concern' list created by intelligence during the Oboma admin. Obama is just given the blane because he was in charge during that time. And there isnt a lawsuit because of how that information was portrayed.

 

No plan is perfect, but I like to see at least some controls in place.

 

It isnt a 'travel ban'. It is a suspension of new visas until the process is reviewed.

1) it doesnt ban travel for people who have visas
2) a ban infers that it us indefinite but it is really a suspension on new visas and not a ban on new visas.

The media keeps saying 'travel ban' but that is completely false.

 

So then all the people who have been turned back who already have green cards or legal visas don't exist?

Why did Trump call it a ban if it's not a ban?

 

Perhaps a better and wider need would be to apply laws like the truth in advertising concept. This would be to require that is something is shown as news, it be factual news- not slanted and manipulated editorially. That is not a limit to free speech any more than a slander law, and the barrage of politically motivated propaganda now being marketed as news is doing great harm to the nation- it's becoming impossible to know what is really true, and that makes it impossible to make the best decisions for all of us. Media simply labels opinion as editorial comment, and reports news as facts- without all the adjectives and emphasis used now to twist it into a fake message. There would be significant fines for doing so, and potentially a loss of license for excessive offenders. Of course, this used to be done internally with journalistic integrity, the personal principles that have regulated much of our media's objective news reporting and kept it trusted and respectable. That integrity has vanished along with several others unsavory characteristics brought to us by the new ideologies going around, and the lack of will to discipline themselves, along with the damaging effect of fake news on the nation, calls for outside discipline- with teeth...

 

He literally said, there's no difference. I think to Trump, he's flustered about this. The whole "90-120 days" thing should've gave it away, but no. As someone whose used to being at the top without this kind of insubordination, it's really wearing down on him quite fast. And it's unprecedented. And it's unpatriotic.

They literally have no room to complain about Obama's treatment. Obama had a very nice presidency, compared to this. "Blowing up the WH". Seriously?

Time will tell(as it has told in the past) with regards to Trump's political capabilities. If the EO withstands scrutnity then I expect alot of backflipping saying that they didn't really mean what they said and did. But here's the thing: The opposition was so huge, no one will ever forget it. If Trump lasts to 2018 in relatively good standing, it'll be very hard for Dems to remain relevant.