American Leftards

Obama also blocked immigration from these countries temporarily in 2012. Not a single Liberal gave a fuck. These people are mentally ill.

作者： Tik-Tok, 30.01.2017 at 17:51

Obama also blocked immigration from these countries temporarily in 2012. Not a single Liberal gave a fuck. These people are mentally ill.

The second coming of Tik-Tok is upon us

Embrace it ♥

作者： Tik-Tok, 30.01.2017 at 17:51

These people are mentally ill.

作者： Tik-Tok, 30.01.2017 at 17:51

Obama also blocked immigration from these countries temporarily in 2012. Not a single Liberal gave a fuck. These people are mentally ill.

Let's look at the facts, per se. Here is just a snippet from an Associated Press Article
(AP FACT CHECK: Trump Claims on Travel Ban Misleading, Wrong):

作者： Universali, 31.01.2017 at 13:37

(AP FACT CHECK: Trump Claims on Travel Ban Misleading, Wrong)

That doesn't prove Trump's claim wrong though. If you actually read the executive order the visa ban only lasts for 120 days during which proper vetting is supposed to take place (Trump calls this "figuring out what's going on"). After that depending on what they find the DHS and the State Department may decide to let in who knows how many refugees, with a directive from Trump to prioritize religious minorities (Christians). The fact is we don't know how many Iraqi asylum seekers will be given entry into the U.S this year because it's only January and Trump's ban doesn't even necessary last half the year.

作者： Acquiesce, 31.01.2017 at 19:48

作者： Universali, 31.01.2017 at 13:37

(AP FACT CHECK: Trump Claims on Travel Ban Misleading, Wrong)

That doesn't prove Trump's claim wrong though. If you actually read the executive order the visa ban only lasts for 120 days during which proper vetting is supposed to take place (Trump calls this "figuring out what's going on"). After that depending on what they find the DHS and the State Department may decide to let in who knows how many refugees, with a directive from Trump to prioritize religious minorities (Christians). The fact is we don't know how many Iraqi asylum seekers will be given entry into the U.S this year because it's only January and Trump's ban doesn't even necessary last half the year.

I should have been a bit more clear, hat is the name of the AP Article, which is an informing read. The point of the matter, is that is being fought in court because it is discriminatory. The point of accepting refugees is to provide relief and resettlement, which should not depend on religion, much less on something that you cannot change (Nationality/Place of Birth).

作者： Tik-Tok, 30.01.2017 at 17:51

These people are mentally ill.

Coming from you. Hahahahahahah

Oh damn always funny to start AW with a laugh.

作者： Universali, 31.01.2017 at 19:56

which should not depend on religion

Nope, accepting refugees based on religion is a well established legal practice ever since 1951 Geneva Conventions

"A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group."
Source: http://www.unrefugees.org/what-is-a-refugee/

Persecuted Christian minorities in these countries exactly fit this definition

作者： Acquiesce, 01.02.2017 at 10:35

作者： Universali, 31.01.2017 at 19:56

which should not depend on religion

Nope, accepting refugees based on religion is a well established legal practice ever since 1951 Geneva Conventions

"A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group."
Source: http://www.unrefugees.org/what-is-a-refugee/

Persecuted Christian minorities in these countries exactly fit this definition

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Isn't what you're saying violating the first Amendment? Accepting refugees based on religion is discrimination, and Trump's executive orders give preference to Christians.

作者： Greenflame, 01.02.2017 at 14:29

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Isn't what you're saying violating the first Amendment? Accepting refugees based on religion is discrimination, and Trump's executive orders give preference to Christians.

Nothing in the 1st Amendment says anything about banning a certain religion from entering the country, it just says that the government can't establish their own religion like Henry VIII did, and that a religion can't be banned from being practiced while in the country.

作者： Viruslegion, 01.02.2017 at 14:42

Nothing in the 1st Amendment says anything about banning a certain religion from entering the country, it just says that the government can't establish their own religion like Henry VIII did, and that a religion can't be banned from being practiced while in the country.

To add to that, the Bill of Rights defines the rights of U.S citizens, not foreign nationals. So an argument could be made that banning Muslim Americans from entering is a violation of the first, but that's not what this executive order does at all.

作者： Waffel, 01.02.2017 at 06:43

Coming from you. Hahahahahahah

Oh damn always funny to start AW with a laugh.

as times keeps passing i am finding myself beliving that left and right wing are the same thing

作者： Rock Lee, 01.02.2017 at 15:42

as times keeps passing i am finding myself beliving that left and right wing are the same thing

Why did you ever doubt that? There are no wings, just democrats and republicans... same story, different self-imposed label.

作者： RaulPB, 01.02.2017 at 16:32

Why did you ever doubt that? There are no wings, just democrats and republicans... same story, different self-imposed label.

This is the first time in a over a century that we have a president who is neither a republican or a democrat, you should be overjoyed

作者： Acquiesce, 01.02.2017 at 18:07

This is the first time in a over a century that we have a president who is neither a republican or a democrat, you should be overjoyed

He happens to have tagged himself as republican as soon as he joined that party.

作者： RaulPB, 01.02.2017 at 18:22

He happens to have tagged himself as republican as soon as he joined that party.

Yes, because in American politics that's truly the only way to win the presidency. He is clearly not a republican by any measure, and he threatened multiple times to run as an independent if he wasn't treated fairly by real republicans. He has never held any previous political office but has been registered with both parties in the past. He's also hated by most establishment republicans so if that's any indication... I'd say he's as much a republican as I am Greek because I lived in Athens for 3 months lol

作者： Acquiesce, 01.02.2017 at 18:44

Yes, because in American politics that's truly the only way to win the presidency. He is clearly not a republican by any measure, and he threatened multiple times to run as an independent if he wasn't treated fairly by real republicans. He has never held any previous political office but has been registered with both parties in the past. He's also hated by most establishment republicans so if that's any indication... I'd say he's as much a republican as I am Greek because I lived in Athens for 3 months lol

I'm not quite a fan of this kind of people. If he didn't tag himself as any of them, then he'd go as independent in the first place, no matter the winning chances. Anyway, I don't wanna talk about trump yet, we've got a long way until he's out. For now, his words or actions seem more of a republican.

作者： Greenflame, 01.02.2017 at 14:29

作者： Acquiesce, 01.02.2017 at 10:35

作者： Universali, 31.01.2017 at 19:56

which should not depend on religion

Nope, accepting refugees based on religion is a well established legal practice ever since 1951 Geneva Conventions

"A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group."
Source: http://www.unrefugees.org/what-is-a-refugee/

Persecuted Christian minorities in these countries exactly fit this definition

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Isn't what you're saying violating the first Amendment? Accepting refugees based on religion is discrimination, and Trump's executive orders give preference to Christians.

Laws created by Christian who never even considered a Muslim wanting to migrate to there country. The fact is untill there is a proper way to stop radicals from entering countries with refugees they should not be allowed in. This is a safety concern.

作者： RaulPB, 01.02.2017 at 18:59

作者： Acquiesce, 01.02.2017 at 18:44

Yes, because in American politics that's truly the only way to win the presidency. He is clearly not a republican by any measure, and he threatened multiple times to run as an independent if he wasn't treated fairly by real republicans. He has never held any previous political office but has been registered with both parties in the past. He's also hated by most establishment republicans so if that's any indication... I'd say he's as much a republican as I am Greek because I lived in Athens for 3 months lol

I'm not quite a fan of this kind of people. If he didn't tag himself as any of them, then he'd go as independent in the first place, no matter the winning chances. Anyway, I don't wanna talk about trump yet, we've got a long way until he's out. For now, his words or actions seem more of a republican.

You can't win if your not republican or democrat. He had to run as one.

作者： Helly, 01.02.2017 at 19:45

作者： Greenflame, 01.02.2017 at 14:29

作者： Acquiesce, 01.02.2017 at 10:35

作者： Universali, 31.01.2017 at 19:56

which should not depend on religion

Nope, accepting refugees based on religion is a well established legal practice ever since 1951 Geneva Conventions

"A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group."
Source: http://www.unrefugees.org/what-is-a-refugee/

Persecuted Christian minorities in these countries exactly fit this definition

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Isn't what you're saying violating the first Amendment? Accepting refugees based on religion is discrimination, and Trump's executive orders give preference to Christians.

Laws created by Christian who never even considered a Muslim wanting to migrate to there country. The fact is untill there is a proper way to stop radicals from entering countries with refugees they should not be allowed in. This is a safety concern.

The thing is, there are all sorts of people who have been stranded because of the ban. International students from Harvard and MIT, international employees, even people on leave who were just visiting their families. Green Card holders have been detained simply because of where they come from...

作者： Greenflame, 01.02.2017 at 20:26

The thing is, there are all sorts of people who have been stranded because of the ban. International students from Harvard and MIT, international employees, en people on leave who were just visiting their families. Green Card holders have been detained simply because of where they come from...

The ban does not translate to green card holders returning, legitimate american citizens are protected, the ban is for non citizens only and absolutely legal. Emphasis on absolutely.

And wait what, muslems are being "detained" simply of where they come from..thats so sad bruhh... buhuhuhu if you cant hear it im crying liberal tears now. Meanwhile in moslem countries people are being "murdered" from where they come from, their religion (or lack of), their gender, sexuality or political views.

So cry us a river, we dont care anymore. Shop's closed, pack your bags, parties over, your out.

作者： Greenflame, 01.02.2017 at 20:26

作者： Helly, 01.02.2017 at 19:45

作者： Greenflame, 01.02.2017 at 14:29

作者： Acquiesce, 01.02.2017 at 10:35

作者： Universali, 31.01.2017 at 19:56

which should not depend on religion

Nope, accepting refugees based on religion is a well established legal practice ever since 1951 Geneva Conventions

"A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group."
Source: http://www.unrefugees.org/what-is-a-refugee/

Persecuted Christian minorities in these countries exactly fit this definition

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Isn't what you're saying violating the first Amendment? Accepting refugees based on religion is discrimination, and Trump's executive orders give preference to Christians.

Laws created by Christian who never even considered a Muslim wanting to migrate to there country. The fact is untill there is a proper way to stop radicals from entering countries with refugees they should not be allowed in. This is a safety concern.

The thing is, there are all sorts of people who have been stranded because of the ban. International students from Harvard and MIT, international employees, even people on leave who were just visiting their families. Green Card holders have been detained simply because of where they come from...

Well if that's the case it's bureaucracy being retarded. The restrictions should only effect those who have not been properly vetted such as refugees. If your an international who has frequently visited america on various forms of business and have already been through the proper procedures then this should not effect you.

Edit: Not saying if this is true or not cause I have not looked into it, for all I know your information could be false and from a biased new agency. I was simply responding to it as if it was indeed true.

作者： Khal.eesi, 01.02.2017 at 21:20

作者： Greenflame, 01.02.2017 at 20:26

The thing is, there are all sorts of people who have been stranded because of the ban. International students from Harvard and MIT, international employees, en people on leave who were just visiting their families. Green Card holders have been detained simply because of where they come from...

The ban does not translate to green card holders returning, legitimate american citizens are protected, the ban is for non citizens only and absolutely legal. Emphasis on absolutely.

And wait what, muslems are being "detained" simply of where they come from..thats so sad bruhh... buhuhuhu if you cant hear it im crying liberal tears now. Meanwhile in moslem countries people are being "murdered" from where they come from, their religion (or lack of), their gender, sexuality or political views.

So cry us a river, we dont care anymore. Shop's closed, pack your bags, parties over, your out.

Thank you for finally seeing that Fox News should be fired!

作者： Greenflame, 02.02.2017 at 06:22

作者： Khal.eesi, 01.02.2017 at 21:20

作者： Greenflame, 01.02.2017 at 20:26

The thing is, there are all sorts of people who have been stranded because of the ban. International students from Harvard and MIT, international employees, en people on leave who were just visiting their families. Green Card holders have been detained simply because of where they come from...

The ban does not translate to green card holders returning, legitimate american citizens are protected, the ban is for non citizens only and absolutely legal. Emphasis on absolutely.

And wait what, muslems are being "detained" simply of where they come from..thats so sad bruhh... buhuhuhu if you cant hear it im crying liberal tears now. Meanwhile in moslem countries people are being "murdered" from where they come from, their religion (or lack of), their gender, sexuality or political views.

So cry us a river, we dont care anymore. Shop's closed, pack your bags, parties over, your out.

Thank you for finally seeing that Fox News should be fired!

why

作者： Helly, 01.02.2017 at 19:50

You can't win if your not republican or democrat. He had to run as one.

I know and I accept it, but I don't share his judgement. If I don't feel like one, I wouldn't join them. Idk, probably a matter of principles.

Because lefttards are huge babies when they don't get things that go their way.

作者： Greenflame, 01.02.2017 at 14:29

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Isn't what you're saying violating the first Amendment? Accepting refugees based on religion is discrimination, and Trump's executive orders give preference to Christians.

Wrong. The immigration acts have given the President defacto status to ban immigration from any nation he sees fit.

引句:

"section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952." It says, "Whenever the president finds that the entry of aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, the president 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 non-immigrant's or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

Glorious. This can justify pretty much any ban of any kind or caliber. These people do not have constitutional rights, the congress is Republican and will approve and now the Supreme Court is also Republican. This is happening, deal with it. No one wants this, so instead of moving the third world to the West, why don't you move to the third world?

作者： Universali, 31.01.2017 at 13:37

Let's look at the facts, per se. Here is just a snippet from an Associated Press Article
(AP FACT CHECK: Trump Claims on Travel Ban Misleading, Wrong):

It isn't misleading:

引句:

— July 25, 2011. Barred those under a UN travel ban, or who broke 29 executive orders covering transactions with terrorists.

— Aug. 4, 2012. Banned anybody involved in war crimes, or just about any other crime including human rights violations.

— April 23, 2012. Barred those helping Syria or Iran, or involved in human rights abuses for those governments.

— May 1, 2012. Another block on those helping Iran and Syria.

— April 3, 2014. Banned anyone known to threaten South Sudan.

Point remains. The POTUS blocked travel and Liberals didn't give a fuck. Travel bans are perfectly justified, legal and widely practiced by nations across the world. The most important point of all is no one wants this. America and Europe have never wanted this. Every poll tells us this and Trump was elected on a policy of banning Muslims, deporting ALL illegals and significantly curbing immigration. So far, he's only banned travel from specific countries.

But in all honesty, I can't wait to watch you people lose your shit when he extends that ban to other countries. Because it's going to happen. Enjoy the show as the West grows balls again.