What about the Immigration and Nationality Act?

[AlwaysWrite]

The Immigration and Nationality Act -- which is being totally ignored by Barack Hussein Obama -- in Chapter 2 of Section 212 PROHIBITS ENTRY TO THE U.S. IF THE ALIEN BELONGS TO AN ORGANIZATION SEEKING TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES BY "FORCE, VIOLENCE OR OTHER UNCONSTITUTIONAL MEANS."

If that law was actually enforced, wouldn't it rule out Islamic immigration to the U.S.? And wouldn't that law generally support the recent statements of Donald Trump?

 

[livespive]

Only the extremist. That is the problem with Tump, he thinks he can through everyone in one group.
Using his logic, we would be banning Chistians as well.

 

[9andaWiggle]

I agree with Trump on the temporarily blocking people from certain countries from coming here. Because I'm racist? No. Because it is obviously becomming an issue of National Security.

It's not saying all people from those places are bad people. It's saying those places harbor unfriendlies that will use any means necessary to inflict harm on the United States and its people. Therefore, it is more important to protect the well being of American citizens than it is to worry about inconveniencing foreign visitors or hurting their feelings. At least until those areas become more stable, and/or we figure out a better way to screen and verify who is coming in that ensures no unfriendly foe can sneak through undetected. Right now we can't do that, so maybe it's better to simply restrict who can come in and from where they come from.

 

[livespive]

Doesn't work, he is saying no one can come back...

Basically he will be no better than Obama, trashing the constitution whenever they see fit.

As long as we have our own people doing stuff to us, Trump can pound sand. Oh Timmy boy was an american and he blew up a building.
And there are plenty others. When we get rid of folks like him, the Klan, the Bloods, the Crips, etc then I will worry about muslums.

I agree with Trump on the temporarily blocking people from certain countries from coming here. Because I'm racist? No. Because it is obviously becomming an issue of National Security.

It's not saying all people from those places are bad people. It's saying those places harbor unfriendlies that will use any means necessary to inflict harm on the United States and its people. Therefore, it is more important to protect the well being of American citizens than it is to worry about inconveniencing foreign visitors or hurting their feelings. At least until those areas become more stable, and/or we figure out a better way to screen and verify who is coming in that ensures no unfriendly foe can sneak through undetected. Right now we can't do that, so maybe it's better to simply restrict who can come in and from where they come from.

 

[bbfreeburn]

The Immigration and Nationality Act -- which is being totally ignored by Barack Hussein Obama -- in Chapter 2 of Section 212 PROHIBITS ENTRY TO THE U.S. IF THE ALIEN BELONGS TO AN ORGANIZATION SEEKING TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES BY "FORCE, VIOLENCE OR OTHER UNCONSTITUTIONAL MEANS."

If that law was actually enforced, wouldn't it rule out Islamic immigration to the U.S.? And wouldn't that law generally support the recent statements of Donald Trump?

To answer your question - no.

 

[9andaWiggle]

Doesn't work, he is saying no one can come back...

Basically he will be no better than Obama, trashing the constitution whenever they see fit.

As long as we have our own people doing stuff to us, Trump can pound sand. Oh Timmy boy was an american and he blew up a building.
And there are plenty others. When we get rid of folks like him, the Klan, the Bloods, the Crips, etc then I will worry about muslums.

The gang stuff is another issue... I don't understand why they are (seemingly) given a pass and not labeled, tracked, and dealt with as domestic terrorists, which is basically what a gang is. How can any group claiming a public territory as "theirs" be considered as anything else?

As for the current situation vs those other instances, vast areas of the middle east are currently at war with or under siege by extremist groups and this is already spilling over into Europe. Ignoring those factors and failing to take steps limiting our exposure to potential unfriendly elements from that region is irresponsible, IMO.

I would agree with you were the events in the middle east not taking place. But as it is, we may have to agree to disagree.

 

[livespive]

Just remember this is a very slippery slope that we would be heading down should we do something like this.

All it takes is for the powers that be to twist the wording to suit their needs.

All they have to do is get off their asses and fix the issues. As others have said keeping them from coming in will not stop anything,
there are enough here for more 911's etc etc

What do we do about Muslims that are in the service fighting for us etc?

The gang stuff is another issue... I don't understand why they are (seemingly) given a pass and not labeled, tracked, and dealt with as domestic terrorists, which is basically what a gang is. How can any group claiming a public territory as "theirs" be considered as anything else?

As for the current situation vs those other instances, vast areas of the middle east are currently at war with or under siege by extremist groups and this is already spilling over into Europe. Ignoring those factors and failing to take steps limiting our exposure to potential unfriendly elements from that region is irresponsible, IMO.

I would agree with you were the events in the middle east not taking place. But as it is, we may have to agree to disagree.

 

[AlwaysWrite]

Just remember this is a very slippery slope that we would be heading down should we do something like this.

Dear livespive:

So the Immigration and Nationalization Act means nothing?

 

[Greg T.]

Well, since everyone is trying to be so PC in this topic I'll spell it out. Jimmy Carter, GOD to the liberals, banned Iranians because of the hostage situation, so I think we should be able to ban the towel headed goat fuckers for killing us.

 

[livespive]

I am talking about Trump's plan. As myself and bbfreeburn stated the act is not Trumps plan.
You could say Trump's plan is an extreme version of that.

As for Carter Greg, I am a little young How long was the ban for, and was he doing what trump did?

If I get Trump right he is trying to ban an entire religion Which would be against the constitution. My wife's coworker is a converted Muslim (she was baptist).
Now accourding to Trump if should goes to Canada for the weekend she can't come back?

Dear livespive:

So the Immigration and Nationalization Act means nothing?

 

[Greg T.]

I am talking about Trump's plan. As myself and bbfreeburn stated the act is not Trumps plan.
You could say Trump's plan is an extreme version of that.

As for Carter Greg, I am a little young How long was the ban for, and was he doing what trump did?

If I get Trump right he is trying to ban an entire religion Which would be against the constitution. My wife's coworker is a converted Muslim (she was baptist).
Now accourding to Trump if should goes to Canada for the weekend she can't come back?

I believe
Carter put a ban on all Iranians from entering the country, and kicked out and Iranians here that were not U.S. citizens. He even booted the diplomats. If my memory is still functioning it was April of 1980. I don't remember when the ban was lifted, but I do know that Reagan also added sanctions to those already in place in 86 or 87.

 

[livespive]

See, and there is the rub.....

IT isn't like Trump is trying to ban on nation. He shot his mouth off without thinking. There are Muslims of erery "race"
everywhere. A ban just will not work......

I do like Carter's idea of kicking out non citizens. A plan plan to kick out Muslims that are not citizens or have been citizens for less than a certain ammount of time.

I believe
Carter put a ban on all Iranians from entering the country, and kicked out and Iranians here that were not U.S. citizens. He even booted the diplomats. If my memory is still functioning it was April of 1980. I don't remember when the ban was lifted, but I do know that Reagan also added sanctions to those already in place in 86 or 87.

 

[livespive]

And just remember Greg, the next move once the Trump ban would be in place and another shooting happens,
is to try and the gun ban going again, and taking all of the guns away....

But as that goes you and I both know they really didn't have that many in comparison to alot of gun owner out there.

 

[Greg T.]

See, and there is the rub.....

IT isn't like Trump is trying to ban on nation. He shot his mouth off without thinking. There are Muslims of erery "race"
everywhere. A ban just will not work......

I do like Carter's idea of kicking out non citizens. A plan plan to kick out Muslims that are not citizens or have been citizens for less than a certain ammount of time.

There's a bit of a difference in the situations, tho. We had trouble with Iran and Iran only at that time. They had 40 American hostages. So, Carter targeted Iran. I see what you're saying, but I also see Trump's side. The problem is Muslims come from all over and the muslims are the ones wreaking all the havoc. According to the law posted, a group of people is a group of people. I haven't studied the law, but I don't think is it says "except religious groups" in the text. It just makes sense to me that IF the last 200 attacks on Americans came from Musilms, I think they should be categorized as a group. Obviosly, not all the Iranians booted were guilty. But, just as it was in school; one person fucks around in Gym class and you all run laps.

 

[livespive]

Point taken.... but in counting to 200 I bet there are some american attacks in there as well.
What then. How far back was McVey (SP?) in this 200 counting, if we used that number.

I see what you are saying about the law, but I bet they could take it to the Supreme court for feedom of religion.

Where is Michelle

There's a bit of a difference in the situations, tho. We had trouble with Iran and Iran only at that time. They had 40 American hostages. So, Carter targeted Iran. I see what you're saying, but I also see Trump's side. The problem is Muslims come from all over and the muslims are the ones wreaking all the havoc. According to the law posted, a group of people is a group of people. I haven't studied the law, but I don't think is it says "except religious groups" in the text. It just makes sense to me that IF the last 200 attacks on Americans came from Musilms, I think they should be categorized as a group. Obviosly, not all the Iranians booted were guilty. But, just as it was in school; one person fucks around in Gym class and you all run laps.

 

[WAMO]

AM I WRONG, BUT IF YOU ARE NOT A US CITIZEN, YOU DO NOT FALL UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AS WRITEN. AND I STILL SAY, IF NOONE CAN TELL WHO IS GOOD AND WHO IS BAD, NOONE GETS IN. THEN WE FOR SURE KEEP THE RIGHT ONE OUT. AND I READ THAT THEY ARE TALKIKG ABOUT STOPPING PEOPLE FROM COMING IN FROM A COUPLE OF COUNTRIES BECAUSE ITS TO HARD TO VERIFY THEIR PAPERS. SO IF THEY FLY TO MEXICO AND COME IN, ITS OK? I SAY STOP THEM ALL. AND WITH TRUMP, DONT ALL POLITICIANS TALK SHIT WITHOUT HAVING ALL THE DETAILS WORKED OUT?

 

[Greg T.]

AM I WRONG, BUT IF YOU ARE NOT A US CITIZEN, YOU DO NOT FALL UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AS WRITEN. AND I STILL SAY, IF NOONE CAN TELL WHO IS GOOD AND WHO IS BAD, NOONE GETS IN. THEN WE FOR SURE KEEP THE RIGHT ONE OUT. AND I READ THAT THEY ARE TALKIKG ABOUT STOPPING PEOPLE FROM COMING IN FROM A COUPLE OF COUNTRIES BECAUSE ITS TO HARD TO VERIFY THEIR PAPERS. SO IF THEY FLY TO MEXICO AND COME IN, ITS OK? I SAY STOP THEM ALL. AND WITH TRUMP, DONT ALL POLITICIANS TALK SHIT WITHOUT HAVING ALL THE DETAILS WORKED OUT?

That is a thought i had not considered. They dont have the freedom of religion argument if they are not citizens. Good catch, wamo!

 

[WAMO]

THANKS G. SOMETIMES I COME THRU.

 

[livespive]

I am talking about if they are citizens. That is the thing, Trump wants to ban them all. Like I said earlier if they are not citizens, or have just become citizens then that raises a flag.

That is a thought i had not considered. They dont have the freedom of religion argument if they are not citizens. Good catch, wamo!

 

[Greg T.]

I am talking about if they are citizens. That is the thing, Trump wants to ban them all. Like I said earlier if they are not citizens, or have just become citizens then that raises a flag.

I may be wrong, but I've never seen where he said he would throw out legal citizens. What I've read tells me he would ban all new visas and deport all those here on visas.