Donald Trump elected 45th US president

[YNM]

Well it said if you've been allowed to stay in the US (ie. green card) you definitely can. https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/sta ... ted-states

Dual citizenship... I suppose all depends on which country you're on. British passport still cuts it I suppose. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pres ... tion-to-us

Still, hours in immigration sounds more like Arstotzkan border.

[Train<In>Vain]

Allow me to just name a couple of people who would be refused entry into the United States of America at the moment:

1. Mika Zibanejad - Swedish ice hockey player for the New York Rangers. His father is from Iran
2. Asghar Farhadi - Iranian movie director. Directed the 2012 Academy Award winning movie "A Separation" and the 2017 Academy Award nominated "The Salesman". Asghar Farhadi will not be able to represent his own movie during the Award ceremony because he may be a terrorist. How come they think he is a terrorist? Oh he was born in Iran, you know.

But the final one is a Knight of the British Empire...

1. Sir Mohamed Muktar Jama Farah - British athlete better known as Mo Farah and a resident of USA for the last couple of years. His wife and children live in the United States, but Mo Farah is originally from Somalia.

Now that's really nicely done, Mister Trump.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is a great example of 'playing fast and loose with the facts' displayed by anti-Trumpers, and Democrats will continue to lose elections because the voters aint buying it. Sorry to bring the facts to get in the way of *ehem* "objective opinion". (Incidentally, I don't agree with how this EO was implemented esp regarding the detention of greencard holders, which was a very crappy thing to do IMO).

1st, regarding Asghar Farhadi:


Asghar Farhadi, the Iranian born director of Oscar-nominated film The Salesman, has said that he will not be attending the award ceremony in the United States next month, even if an exception were to be made to the ban on Muslims from seven countries entering the US.

Farhadi says that he regrets having to make the decision, and condemned President Trump's actions.

"I regret to announce via this statement that I have decided to not attend the Academy Awards Ceremony alongside my fellow members of the cinematic community," the award-winning director said in a statement.

"Over the course of the past few days and despite the unjust circumstances which have risen for the immigrants and travelers of several countries to the United States, my decision had remained the same: to attend this ceremony and to express my opinions about these circumstances in the press surrounding the event."

He said: "It now seems that the possibility of this presence is being accompanied by ifs and buts which are in no way acceptable to me even if exceptions were to be made for my trip."

And finally, the actual EO, text copy/pasted directly from DHS website:
Release Date: January 29, 2017

The Executive Order signed on January 27, 2017 allows for the proper review and establishment of standards to prevent terrorist or criminal infiltration by foreign nationals. The United States has the world’s most generous immigration system, yet it has been repeatedly exploited by terrorists and other malicious actors who seek to do us harm. In order to ensure that the United States government can conduct a thorough and comprehensive analysis of the national security risks posed from our immigration system, it imposes a 90-day suspension on entry to the United States of nationals of certain designated countries—countries that were designated by Congress and the Obama Administration as posing national security risks in the Visa Waiver Program.

In order to protect Americans, and to advance the national interest, the United States must ensure that those entering this country will not harm the American people subsequent to their entry, and that they do not bear n\malicious intent toward the United States and its people. The Executive Order protects the United States from countries compromised by terrorism and ensures a more rigorous vetting process. This Executive Order ensures that we have a functional immigration system that safeguards our national security.

This Executive Order, as well as the two issued earlier in the week, provide the Department with additional resources, tools and personnel to carry out the critical work of securing our borders, enforcing the immigration laws of our nation, and ensuring that individuals who pose a threat to national security or public safety cannot enter or remain in our country. Protecting the American people is the highest priority of our government and this Department.

The Department of Homeland Security will faithfully execute the immigration laws and the President’s Executive Order, and we will treat all of those we encounter humanely and with professionalism.

Authorities

The Congress provided the President of the United States, in section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), with the authority to suspend the entry of any class of aliens the president deems detrimental to the national interest. This authority has been exercised by nearly every president since President Carter, and has been a component of immigration laws since the enactment of the INA in 1952.

Action

For the next 90 days, nearly all travelers, except U.S. citizens, traveling on passports from Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Iran, Somalia, Libya, and Yemen will be temporarily suspended from entry to the United States. The 90 day period will allow for proper review and establishment of standards to prevent terrorist or criminal infiltration by foreign nationals.

Importantly, however, Lawful Permanent Residents of the United States traveling on a valid I-551 will be allowed to board U.S. bound aircraft and will be assessed for exceptions at arrival ports of entry, as appropriate. The entry of these individuals, subject to national security checks, is in the national interest. Therefore, we expect swift entry for these individuals.

In the first 30 days, DHS will perform a global country-by-country review of the information each country provides when their citizens apply for a U.S. visa or immigration benefit. Countries will then have 60 days to comply with any requests from the U.S. government to update or improve the quality of the information they provide.

DHS and the Department of State have the authority, on a case-by-case basis, to issue visas or allow the entry of nationals of these countries into the United States when it serves the national interest. These seven countries were designated by Congress and the Obama Administration as posing a significant enough security risk to warrant additional scrutiny in the visa waiver context.

The Refugee Admissions Program will be temporarily suspended for the next 120 days while DHS and interagency partners review screening procedures to ensure refugees admitted in the future do not pose a security risk to citizens of the United States.

The Executive Order does not prohibit entry of, or visa issuance to, travelers with 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.

The Department of Homeland Security along with the Department of State, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation will develop uniform screening standards for all immigration programs government-wide.

Upon resumption of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, refugee admissions to the United States will not exceed 50,000 for fiscal year 2017.

The Secretary of Homeland Security will expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking system of all travelers into the United States.

Federal Government

As part of a broader set of government actions, the Secretary of State will review all nonimmigrant visa reciprocity agreements to ensure that they are, with respect to each visa classification, truly reciprocal.

The Department of State will restrict the Visa Interview Waiver Program and require additional nonimmigrant visa applicants to undergo an in-person interview.

Transparency

The Department of Homeland Security, in order to be more transparent with the American people, and to more effectively implement policies and practices that serve the national interest will make information available to the public every 180 days. In coordination with the Department of Justice, DHS will provide information regarding the number of foreign nationals charged with terrorism-related offense or gender-based violence against women while in the United States.

[Chrill]

That's a great wall of text, but it fully confirms my statement.

Asghar Farhadi, the Iranian born director of Oscar-nominated film The Salesman, has said that he will not be attending the award ceremony in the United States next month, even if an exception were to be made to the ban on Muslims from seven countries entering the US.

See, there would need to be an exception just for letting him enter. Isn't that absurd? How is that an American value?

I confess, I do not fully know the US Constitution, but I sincerely believe that a FUNDAMENTAL freedom is the freedom of religion. Then how can a law banning people from Muslim countries be seen as anything other than unconstitutional?

Please focus on the issue instead of copy pasting long rows of text.

In regards to the other two cases, a man knighted by the Queen of England is considered a threat and a professional athlete plying his trade in USA can no longer invite his family to see him play, even if he himself is granted entry. You can't sit here and claim that it is just.

I might add that the 7 countries selected have never carried out terrorist attacks on American soil. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, Jordan, and Kuwaiti citizens have done it. None of these countries are on his list! I don't know, maybe that is related to Trump having invested in these countries and his economy must be at the forefront of American politics. Maybe when signing this executive order he "forgot" those countries. I don't know.

[Pilot]

I always thought that America was supposed to be "the land of the free, and the home of the brave", or is that not true? What is free or brave in banning people, just because they come from a certain country, where a handful of people have caused trouble? That's like the rest of the world turning around and saying "Oh, let's ban people from America, because they allow anyone the use of guns and a select few are killing each other every day"... Is that "wrong" to you? Because it damn well is wrong to me.

This is a British Petition, to stop Trump from making an official state visit to the UK, one I personally agree with, and during the time that I've been typing this message, thousands more people have been signing up to it (There is an "Allow Trump" petition as well, which at this moment in time only has just over 70,000 signatures). If this doesn't tell you the international perception of this man, then I don't know what will. I know people who voted for Brexit on the immigration side of things, who think that Donald Trump is a disgusting man, for Christ sake.

[uzurpator]

I always thought that America was supposed to be "the land of the free, and the home of the brave", or is that not true?

US is, for the last 70 or so years, one of the most isolationist country in the world.

What is free or brave in banning people, just because they come from a certain country, where a handful of people have caused trouble?

Because troublemakers are not visible to the naked eye and as a leader of a country it is his obligation to protect the citizens of the US. This is a standard practice _everywhere_ in the world.

Influx of 1 million or so "refugees" from the countries in question made german crime stats skyrocket. You know, the cool stuff - rape, child grooming, sex trafficking, armed roberries and so on. Overwhelming majority of perpetrators of those crimes come from those countries.

That's like the rest of the world turning around and saying "Oh, let's ban people from America, because they allow anyone the use of guns and a select few are killing each other every day"... Is that "wrong" to you? Because it damn well is wrong to me.

If a wave of yanks come whatever and cause trouble it is going to be a perfectly sane position to take. So far degeneration of the socail fabric in the US is kept to the US, so nobody gives a flying.

This is a British Petition, to stop Trump from making an official state visit to the UK

Politicized butthurt is always entertaining to watch. in the meantime the frontrunners in french elections are a conservative and a nationalist.

[uzurpator]

See, there would need to be an exception just for letting him enter. Isn't that absurd? How is that an American value?

The spirit of the policy is to protect us citizens from the same thing that happens in Germany. Thusly case-by-case exemptions are perfectly congruent with it, because people who are vetted to be of no threat should be exempt.

I confess, I do not fully know the US Constitution, but I sincerely believe that a FUNDAMENTAL freedom is the freedom of religion. Then how can a law banning people from Muslim countries be seen as anything other than unconstitutional?

Nobody "banned muslims".

In regards to the other two cases, a man knighted by the Queen of England is considered a threat and a professional athlete plying his trade in USA can no longer invite his family to see him play, even if he himself is granted entry. You can't sit here and claim that it is just.

Policy is "best practice" and does not claim to be considered always fitting each case. That is why in the practice of the law there is a "sprit of the rule" which pertains why a given law was passed. If a given case falls under the rule, but does not under the spirit, then exemptions are made. Every day. All over the world, for as long as we had constitutional democracies.

I might add that the 7 countries selected have never carried out terrorist attacks on American soil.

But citizens of those countries commited and commit rapes, murders and roberries in Germany.

[Pilot]

I always thought that America was supposed to be "the land of the free, and the home of the brave", or is that not true?

US is, for the last 70 or so years, one of the most isolationist country in the world.

I'm just quoting the nation's national anthem there And really? Isolationist? This is Isolationist? All the alliances that the US has is Isolationist? All the confrontation with the USSR/Russia is Isolationist?

What is free or brave in banning people, just because they come from a certain country, where a handful of people have caused trouble?

Because troublemakers are not visible to the naked eye and as a leader of a country it is his obligation to protect the citizens of the US. This is a standard practice _everywhere_ in the world.

Influx of 1 million or so "refugees" from the countries in question made german crime stats skyrocket. You know, the cool stuff - rape, child grooming, sex trafficking, armed roberries and so on. Overwhelming majority of perpetrators of those crimes come from those countries.

So let's just say that everyone is the same then, eh? It'd be like me saying "Oh, you're Polish, if you come to the UK, you'll be a cowboy builder, because a large number of Cowboy Builders in the UK are Polish".

That's like the rest of the world turning around and saying "Oh, let's ban people from America, because they allow anyone the use of guns and a select few are killing each other every day"... Is that "wrong" to you? Because it damn well is wrong to me.

If a wave of yanks come whatever and cause trouble it is going to be a perfectly sane position to take. So far degeneration of the socail fabric in the US is kept to the US, so nobody gives a flying.

However, the issue with the US is that they are banning people from outside of their country, despite the fact that most of the murders, homicides, shootings, etc. are caused by Americans, not people from the banned countries. A further issue with banning from a certain region is that you will make those people feel more alienated, and likely cause an increase in the number of recruits for organisations such as ISIS.

This is a British Petition, to stop Trump from making an official state visit to the UK

Politicized butthurt is always entertaining to watch. in the meantime the frontrunners in french elections are a conservative and a nationalist.

Why would we want a Misogynistic, Racist, Homophobic man to come to our country for an official visit? I don't think that Le Pen in France would be too welcome either to be honest.

I confess, I do not fully know the US Constitution, but I sincerely believe that a FUNDAMENTAL freedom is the freedom of religion. Then how can a law banning people from Muslim countries be seen as anything other than unconstitutional?

Nobody "banned muslims".

Nor did Chrill say that they did. He said they banned people from Muslim-Countries, not Muslims as a whole.

I might add that the 7 countries selected have never carried out terrorist attacks on American soil.

But citizens of those countries commited and commit rapes, murders and roberries in Germany.

Citizens of any country can commit them crimes in any country. A large group of British People could go to Spain, rape some people, murder people, and rob a load of homes and shops, does that mean that all British people should be banned from Spain?

[Pyoro]

Influx of 1 million or so "refugees" from the countries in question made german crime stats skyrocket. You know, the cool stuff - rape, child grooming, sex trafficking, armed roberries and so on. Overwhelming majority of perpetrators of those crimes come from those countries.

Where you got that from? Cause it's certainly not in the official police statistics. Well, crimes have increased - mostly due to asylum law issues (basically people staying when they shouldn't have or arriving at the country illegal). Everything else stayed at the same level, proportional to having more people in the country, of course.

And the number of total murders in Germany is still in the same area as US police shooting people each year. That's one statistic that always gets me ^^;

[uzurpator]

German migrant crime in 2016

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewe ... 843747&z=6

and 2017

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewe ... 187519&z=6

By category.

Migrants from islamic countries lead in crime in _all_ categories in germany by a long shot, something like 20:1 or something similarily rediculus. I'll have to dig around as I don't have it on hand.

[Pilot]

German migrant crime in 2016...

Other than the XYEinzelfall that made these maps, which very much seem like a "fake news" sorta thing, what other sources do you have that corroborate these maps

For those who are interested, this it their Twitter Page, which is what makes me feel it's "fake news" https://twitter.com/xyeinzelfall?lang=en

[uzurpator]

German migrant crime in 2016...

Other than the XYEinzelfall that made these maps, which very much seem like a "fake news" sorta thing, what other sources do you have that corroborate these maps

At least try, will you?

Each point* on this map is usually a link to a news story about that incident. Sure, all of them might be fake and all of this an alt-right ruse, but I've been following this map ( and a general trend ) tangentally for at least since Cologne, so I find it unlikely.

At one point it even surfaced in mainstream media, for whatever it is worth.

*and I tested about 20 at random

[uzurpator]

I'm just quoting the nation's national anthem there And really? Isolationist? This is Isolationist? All the alliances that the US has is Isolationist? All the confrontation with the USSR/Russia is Isolationist?

US has been very picky in who gets allowed into the country. More then most countries. For example - getting a visa to the US can be very difficult and sometimes is resolved through means of a visa lottery.

Which I think is the context we are discussing.

So let's just say that everyone is the same then, eh? It'd be like me saying "Oh, you're Polish, if you come to the UK, you'll be a cowboy builder, because a large number of Cowboy Builders in the UK are Polish".

What has that to do with anything? Do you understand what a 'policy' is?

However, the issue with the US is that they are banning people from outside of their country, despite the fact that most of the murders, homicides, shootings, etc. are caused by Americans, not people from the banned countries. A further issue with banning from a certain region is that you will make those people feel more alienated, and likely cause an increase in the number of recruits for organisations such as ISIS.

The point is to prevent "murders, homicides, shootings" done by muslims, as shown in europe.

I am fairly certain that I would care very little how people "over there" are alienated as long as them or their estranged relatives don't ride trucks over my behind. I'm selfish like that.

Why would we want a Misogynistic, Racist, Homophobic man to come to our country for an official visit? I don't think that Le Pen in France would be too welcome either to be honest.

Your personal opinion is irrelevant. Curious capitalisation tho, are they adjectives or offical titles?

Anyhow - banning the top dog of the world politics from entering your country when you are an ally of the country said top dog is a leader is ... adorable.

Nor did Chrill say that they did. He said they banned people from Muslim-Countries, not Muslims as a whole.

His claim had no other sense in the context of US constitution.

Citizens of any country can commit them crimes in any country.

...and if those crimes go way off statistical expectation then you might want to restrict them to indulging those wholesome activities in their homeland.

Do you understand the concept of magnitude right? 10 dollars is significantly worse to have then 1000 dollars. By your logic both are fine because you have "money".

A large group of British People could go to Spain, rape some people, murder people, and rob a load of homes and shops, does that mean that all British people should be banned from Spain?

If ratio of brits/spaniards when it comes to doing that is 20:1 then by all means, yes.

[orudge]

Understandably this discussion has grown rather heated - can I suggest everybody cools off a bit? I'm not intending to lock this topic as frankly the actions of Donald Trump are likely to be a talking point for some time to come, but should posts cross the line then warnings will be handed out.

[YNM]

German migrant crime in 2016

https://www.google.com/maps/....15582519843747&z=6

and 2017

https://www.google.com/maps/....695258992187519&z=6

How in the hell can you have some data for a year from a few days. Get your own people data : https://www.bka.de/DE/AktuelleInformati ... _node.html

[Pyoro]

Yes, unfortunately 2016 isn't done yet. But 2015 shows no increases in any way (except regarding immigration law problems), so I'd be surprised if "skyrocketing" was an appropriate description.


I'm always skeptical of apparently politically motivated pages like that Google thing - nice how it doesn't show the criminality against refugees, for example. Also, that map is kinda flawed, I'd say. Never mind that the map also includes Austria and apparently Switzerland to some extend, there are cases quite obviously unrelated to the refugee crisis (Eastern European criminality which has been a problem here since ~1990) and some that are just plain speculation (and we know how reliable eye-witness are, and especially how biased they can be about ethnic minorities). I'd suggest that they very clearly want to paint a certain picture there.

The other thing is that it doesn't, in any way, compare those cases against the cases Germans commit. There's a lot of ... grabbing women's behind and similar stuff at parties, and while that's disgusting, it's pretty much an everyday occurrence across ethnicities. It's just that, if done by a German, they'd probably get a stern look and maybe get thrown out from the location, if that, while with foreigners it's instantly a case for the police. And please don't pretend it doesn't work that way. ^^

[uzurpator]

How in the hell can you have some data for a year from a few days. Get your own people data : https://www.bka.de/DE/AktuelleInformati ... _node.html

Sigh.

Maps, as far as I can understand, are built on news stories and each marker has a link to said story. Some of those stories are inacurrate because they are news stories and some source are biased agaist immigration. However its significance is from the magnitude of reports.

Which should at least make you wonder if there is a substance to the discussed matter.

[Pilot]

Anyhow - banning the top dog of the world politics from entering your country when you are an ally of the country said top dog is a leader is ... adorable.

If you actually read what I said, I said "stop Trump from making an official state visit to the UK", if you read the Petition, you would see it says "Donald Trump should be allowed to enter the UK in his capacity as head of the US Government, but he should not be invited to make an official State Visit". I have not said to ban Trump from entering the country, nor does that petition, I simply said stop him from making an official State Visit.

Also, I'd rather not be allied to a Trump led America, just my opinion, and other people's opinions may differ from my own.

[uzurpator]

If you actually read what I said, I said "stop Trump from making an official state visit to the UK", if you read the Petition, you would see it says "Donald Trump should be allowed to enter the UK in his capacity as head of the US Government, but he should not be invited to make an official State Visit". I have not said to ban Trump from entering the country, nor does that petition, I simply said stop him from making an official State Visit.

That changes, literally, nothing. Trump is president of the US, UK is an ally of the US, Trump will be invited. This is 'realpolitik' in a nutshell.

In 4/8 years (4 is more likely, btw ) someone else is going to be elected and you would be in a hard place if you threw a hissy fit over the then-previous president.

[YNM]

Maps, as far as I can understand, are built on news stories and each marker has a link to said story. Some of those stories are inaccurate because they are news stories and some source are biased against immigration. However its significance is from the magnitude of reports.

Which should at least make you wonder if there is a substance to the discussed matter.

... Which there isn't. A few more media illiteracy themselves : https://youtu.be/DoQMav6alLo

(Note : I do not say that they always do that, I say they're not impertinent to the ditch and dikes either. So good luck separating things off. There's a fair reason why this thing is no longer publicly modifiable, apart from the time we can view it (I'm not sure whether the Wayback machine would cut it).)

"Donald Trump should be allowed to enter the UK in his capacity as head of the US Government, but he should not be invited to make an official State Visit"

Oh ! He would just come asking some local official(s) to play golf (cricket ?) together in the new field his company manages in your soil

[uzurpator]

... Which there isn't. A few more media illiteracy themselves : https://youtu.be/DoQMav6alLo

Ironically, Thunderf00t is, let me put it nicely, not really a fan of muslims. I haven't followed him for some time tho.

EDIT: and he is doing his best to discredit Rebel media, apparently.

Anyhow. This is a red herring. Just because someone somewhere, unrelated to the discussed map, pushed a narrative does not invalidate the map, unless I miss a link somewhere.