Why Trump's Immigration Restriction in Just THOSE Countries?

Danoh

New member
Very well aware of Trump's lifelong history of self-serving financial and political corruption, I googled the words "Trump's business interests in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen"

Result?

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/28/51199...ion-freeze-square-with-his-business-interests

Even as President Trump takes steps to restrict visitors from some majority-Muslim countries, he and his family continue to do business in some of the others.

Ethics experts question whether that might indicate conflicts between Trump's business interests and his role as U.S. president.

The executive action, "Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States," targets seven nations: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Trump has no business interests in those countries.

One other thing they have in common, as NPR's Greg Myre writes: "No Muslim extremist from any of these places has carried out a fatal attack in the U.S. in more than two decades."

The 19 terrorists in the Sept. 11 attacks were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates, Myre points out. They are among the Muslim-majority countries not affected by Trump's immigration freeze, but where Trump does business.

He has significant commercial interests in Turkey and Azerbaijan, is developing properties in Indonesia and Dubai, and has formed companies in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. His daughter Ivanka said in 2015 that the company was looking at "multiple opportunities in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Qatar, Saudi Arabia — the four areas where we are seeing the most interest."

Critics said it appears that Trump is picking favorites, overlooking terrorist links in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey that have their own history of terrorism.

And there appear to be conflict-of-interest questions, which could raise legal and constitutional concerns for the Trump White House.

Norman Eisen, a former ethics adviser to President Obama and a current fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, told NPR in an interview:

"I don't believe that our Constitution allows the president to order State Department and other U.S. government employees to discriminate between otherwise identical people, favoring those from countries he likes because they give him unconstitutional foreign emoluments, and punishing those from other countries that do not pay such personal and illegal tribute to him."

Emoluments are gifts. A provision of the U.S. Constitution, called the emoluments clause, prohibits U.S. officials from taking gifts of value from foreign officials or governments.

Eisen said of Trump: "Normally he would, of course, have freer rein legally in these foreign policy, immigration and refugee matters, but his open and notorious violation of the Constitution changes that. This is the corrupt misconduct of a medieval potentate, not an American president."

Speaking with NPR Friday, Eisen said the executive action may lead to lawsuits, for example by American citizens whose family members are now barred from joining them in this country. "These decisions about who to let in and not to let into the United States can now be challenged, because there's an unconstitutional basis for the president's decision," he said.

The Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive think tank, hit the same point harder, saying Trump was "carpet-bombing U.S. foreign policy":

One might think that Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the two countries that nearly all the 9/11 hijackers came from — and which are currently known to be backing ISIS and other terrorists, in Saudi Arabia's case, and facing serious terror attacks on their own soil largely in response to government repression, in Egypt's — would be included in Trump's twisted analysis as potential sources of terrorism.
But no, those countries were ignored. Conflicts of interest? Nah, just a coincidence.

By the way, that finding is all over the net, I just picked that site over the others because they are all basically reporting the same thing on this issue - Trump's continued, life-long corrupt to the core, self-serving agenda.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
great - so let's hurry up and impeach him and get President Pence working on right to life legislation



and rolling back all that homo crap that bammy pushed :thumb:
 
Last edited:

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
Very well aware of Trump's lifelong history of self-serving financial and political corruption

People change, and I believe Trump's change began when he first considered running for President years ago. If a man sees error and wants to correct it, don't try to subdue him and count his alleged sins :rolleyes:
 

katiecrna

New member
Great post!!! Why those counties??? It's interesting that those muslims countries where his trump towers are in didn't make the list.
 

jeffblue101

New member
Very well aware of Trump's lifelong history of self-serving financial and political corruption, I googled the words "Trump's business interests in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen"

Result?

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/28/51199...ion-freeze-square-with-his-business-interests



By the way, that finding is all over the net, I just picked that site over the others because they are all basically reporting the same thing on this issue - Trump's continued, life-long corrupt to the core, self-serving agenda.

maybe if you googled Obama instead of Trump then you would have realized that Trump got that list of countries from previous Obama enacted foreign policy decisions

secondly very few american businessman would have financial dealings in war torn or heavily sanctioned regions of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. so why single out Trump?
 

jeffblue101

New member
Great post!!! Why those counties??? It's interesting that those muslims countries where his trump towers are in didn't make the list.

this blog post answers your question
https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/2...lim-ban-possible-and-the-media-wont-tell-you/
I had to see for myself, so I read the executive order. The order does seek “to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States.” It says that it seeks “Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern.” It also says “I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order.” And it targets Syrians specifically. “I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.”

But, wait a sec. According to the reports “The order bars all people hailing from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.” Critics had attacked Trump for selecting these seven countries and not selecting other states “linked to his sprawling business empire.” Bloomberg and Forbes bought into this.

But, wait a sec. I read the order and Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen are not mentioned in it.

Go back and read it again. Do a “ctrl-f” to find “Iraq”. Where is “Iraq” in the order. It’s not there. Only Syria is there. So where are the seven nations? Where is the “Muslim ban”? It turns out this was a form of fake news, or alternative facts. Trump didn’t select seven “Muslim-majority” countries. US President Barack Obama’s administration selected these seven Muslim-majority countries.

The Department of Homeland Security targeted these seven countries over the last years as countries of concern. In February 2016 “The Department of Homeland Security today announced that it is continuing its implementation of the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 with the addition of Libya, Somalia, and Yemen as three countries of concern, limiting Visa Waiver Program travel for certain individuals who have traveled to these countries.” It noted “the three additional countries designated today join Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Syria as countries subject to restrictions for Visa Waiver Program travel for certain individuals.” It was the US policy under Obama to restrict and target people “who have been present in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, at any time on or after March 1, 2011 (with limited government/military exceptions).” This was text of the US Customs and Border Protection in 2015 relating to “the Visa Waiver Program and Terrorist Travel Protection Act of 2015“. The link even includes the seven nation list in it: “Iraq, Syria, Iran, SUdan, Somalia or Yemen.” And the media knew this back in May 2016 when some civil rights groups complained about it. “These restrictions have provoked an outcry from the Iranian-American community, as well as Arab-American and civil-liberties groups, who say the restrictions on dual nationals and certain travelers are discriminatory and could be imposed against American dual nationals.”

The Congress and Homeland Security selected these countries in 2016 and before (Screenshot of visa waiver categories, US Customs and Border Protection)
What? So there was a Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 two years before Trump? There was a kind of “Muslim ban” before the Muslim ban? But almost no one critiqued it in 2015 because it was Obama’s administration overseeing it.

So for more than a year it has been US policy to discriminate against, target and even begin to ban people from the seven countries that Trump is accused of banning immigrants and visitors from. CNN even hinted at this by noting “those countries were named in a 2016 law concerning immigration visas as ‘countries of concern.'” But why didn’t CNN note that the seven countries were not named and that in fact they are only on the list because of Obama’s policy?...

The public should be suspicious of Trump’s policies and the media should speak truth to power and demand answers from the administration. But the media should also be truthful with the public and instead of claiming Trump singled out seven countries, it should note that the US Congress and Obama’s Department of Homeland Security had singled out these countries. It should have told us about theTerrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 rather than pretend this list was invented in 2017. Trump’s executive order said “countries of concern,” it didn’t make a list. That list was already made, last year and years before.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
There's a difference between identifying countries that may pose a national threat, and to limit their entry into the US by screening them more heavily compared to Trump taking those 7 countries and banning everyone and refugees from coming in.

yes there is


trump's way is better! :thumb:
 

jeffblue101

New member
There's a difference between identifying countries that may pose a national threat, and to limit their entry into the US by screening them more heavily compared to Trump taking those 7 countries and banning everyone and refugees from coming in.

please read the the executive order not leftist spin, its temporary with exceptions for 120 days so that he can implement a better screening process
 

katiecrna

New member
I read it. I understand where those 7 came from. But it doesn't mean I agree with what he is doing and his execution.
 

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Having flown into the commercial side of the GCC, they do it too. Especially to African muslims.
 

Danoh

New member
People change, and I believe Trump's change began when he first considered running for President years ago. If a man sees error and wants to correct it, don't try to subdue him and count his alleged sins :rolleyes:

Spoken like a true enabler.
 

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
Spoken like a true enabler.

An enabler is one who outright chooses to elect someone to enable crap that you allege you don't believe is right.

Pretty much tired of you liberal 'Christians' trying to bald face tell others you believe in God while nonetheless blatantly choosing those who defend worldliness in every single aspect.

Just go on somewhere, seriously. You're all deceitful people :wave2:
 

Danoh

New member
An enabler is one who outright chooses to elect someone to enable crap that you allege you don't believe is right.

Pretty much tired of you liberal 'Christians' trying to bald face tell others you believe in God while nonetheless blatantly choosing those who defend worldliness in every single aspect.

Just go on somewhere, seriously. You're all deceitful people :wave2:

Again, spoken like a true enabler.

As in the enabling of a person self-deluded by co-dependency.

So much for your supposed expertise on addiction.

You probably swallowed his every assertion on the David Muir interview hooked, lying, and stinker.

Talk about "tells" going off throughout that interview.

If you even know what such "tells" are, how to identify them in each individual, and how to calibrate for them before allowing yourself to rely on them as a gage of when an individual is lying and or telling the truth.

Trump's were a three-alarm "liar, liar, pants on fire" throughout.
 
Top