Yay for restricting liberty and movement!!

Let's keep those that aren't causing trouble out and away from our deplorables.

Look at these liberals, living in their fantasy world with no radical islamic terrorism.

I sense the sarcasm, but at least it's legal which I thought it was as it's in the President's right to do. Now, at least we can sleep safe knowing that travel is restricted from terror prone regions of the world, as was the purpose of the ban.

ND - how many attacks have been staged by people from those regions? Afaik, Uzbekistan is not on the list

hard to say honestly. I don't know the numbers of unpublished homicides and other violent acts committed by people from terror prone regions. I know, in terms, of major terror attacks not much, but if you roll in Europe and the developed world as a whole it's definitely more than zero.

straight racist ND strikes again with his falsified "facts"

we should ban white Americans from entering Canada because there are *published* homicides and violent acts committed by people from that region

Well, if that's in your Prime Minister's right to do. I don't know how the Canadian government handles immigration. I am sure that it is much harder to immigrate to Canada than the United States though. And, it is fully within our rights as a sovereign nation to elect a President to restrict travel to terror prone regions of the world. Sorry, you don't like it. By the way you just interjected race into your argument thus you are the racist not me.

You're a dumbass

Please refrain from personally attacking me DO. I will overlook it this once, but I do not appreciate it. I would not do that to you.

Your dumbass just called me a racist so stop lying to my face

You'd do it to me, ND. Last time I criticised you, you posted a lot of offensive shit and said I was mentally ill.

Um you called me a racist for supporting a legal presidential policy. I would never target a demographic in a disparaging way like you just did. Then you interjected race into your argument. So yeah you are a racist, sorry, but people who interject race into their line of thought and argument's are textbook racists.

Yeah, but I didn't say I wouldn't personally attack you. You just fucking targeted an ethnicity group you daft loser. I can not fucking believe you exist you're a monster.

I think this is going a bit far DO. I didn't attack anyone, I applaud the legality of the President's executive order restricting travel from terror prone regions of the world as stated in the order. Sorry you dislike a lawful and legal executive order or my support of it. But, I'm glad it's legal :D

If anything is terror prone, it is whatever fucking household raised you

Too far and ultra low.

I'm sick of your racist shit all over this forum. I'm sick of how many people you've probably driven away from ever engaging here.

I can understand being (albeit exorbitantly) cautious about suspected terrorists, but why choose those countries and not countries where terrorists have, you know, actually come from? Like Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.

And while I sorta get the thought process behind it, I completely disagree with it. I'm just curious about why you're supporting a travel ban that won't actually stop terrorists from coming, because they haven't been coming from those areas.

At this point I don't believe continued engagement with DO is constructive. I find her statements today to be abusive and have taken the appropriate action.

@Yoyo: Absolutely, well for one I had hoped that the President's power to enforce immigration protocols remained absolute and I am glad to see that it is occurring in regards to the legality of the executive order. Secondly, I do believe some of the areas listed on the ban are appropriate such as Iran, and nations we are hostile with like North Korea and Venezuela. For the other regions, we have had incidents with localized terror. There is no question that ISIS has a foothold in Iraq and Libya.. remember Chris Stevens?

Hahahaha wow ND Sealion much?
"You have been rude to me and I have been nothing but polite to you! All I did was denigrate the entire citizenry of muslim majority countries as dangerous and terror-prone!"
It is possible (as the New York Times profiled exhaustively recently) to be both polite and an absolute bigot. I'll take a rude person with a real sense of justice over a polite bigot any day.

Right, but these bans seem to be reactionary and not proactive. Instead of making it so that terrorists can't get in, it just "punishes" the countries for actions that show no indication for terrorists traveling from those countries.

um there is nothing bigoted about supporting a legal and lawful action of the President of the United States that has been confirmed lawful by the Supreme Court of the United States. Stop buying into buzzwords put out by failing NYT

The best part is when ND says something racist, I change the group of people he's talking about into his group of people, and then he calls me racist.

How did you pass grade school you lunatic

I tend to agree that they are reactionary @Yoyo, but you have to remember the Trump Admin is also working in extreme vetting procedures and giving these nations a way to get off the list if certain standards are being met. So that is proactive.

In essence, the ban doesn't really protect anyone. I'd compare these actions with sanctions that we place on countries.

"um there is nothing bigoted about supporting a legal and lawful action of the President of the United States that has been confirmed lawful by the Supreme Court of the United States." - The Fugitive Slave Act was considered a legal and lawful action at the time it was passed. It was bigoted.
Anti-sodomy laws to target LGBT people were considered legal and lawful when they were passed.
Slavery itself was considered legal and lawful at the time.
Jim crow and segregation were legal and lawful acts of government.

The legality of something is no kind of argument that it isn't bigoted.

The set of things which are legal and the set of things which are Just, is not, has never been and will never be coextensive.

I think that in essence the policy at it's heart is an act of goodwill and meant to be a positive protective act towards the citizens of the United States, but at the end of the day it's really going to take those vetting procedures and other security efforts to really start protecting people. At least it's something though, something is better than nothing, at least Trump is trying to do something, anything, to fight this sicko terrorism stuff.