The Trump Seven; 72 Confirmed
Is that guy seriously throwing down some gang signs?
Since 9/11, 72 individuals from the seven mostly Muslim countries covered by President Trump’s “extreme vetting” executive order have been convicted of terrorism, bolstering the administration’s immigration ban.
No women and children in this image.
According to a report out Saturday, at least 17 claimed to be refugees from those nations, three came in as “students,” and 25 eventually became U.S. citizens.
The Center for Immigration Studies calculated the numbers of convicted terrorists from the Trump Seven:
— Somalia: 20
— Yemen: 19
— Iraq: 19
— Syria: 7
— Iran: 4
— Libya: 2
— Sudan: 1
No women and children in this image either.
The Center’s director of policy studies, Jessica M. Vaughan, based her blockbuster report on a 2016 report from the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, then chaired by new Attorney General Jeff Sessions, that report found that 380 out of 580 people convicted in terror cases since 9/11 were foreign-born.
She received further information on many in the report to conclude that 72 of those convicted of terrorism come from the seven nations target by Trump.
These immigrant terrorists lived in at least 16 different states, with the largest number from the terror-associated countries living in New York (10), Minnesota (8), California (8), and Michigan (6). Ironically, Minnesota was one of the states suing to block Trump’s order to pause entries from the terror-associated countries, claiming it harmed the state. At least two of the terrorists were living in Washington, which joined with Minnesota in the lawsuit to block the order.
Pretty sure there are no women and children in this image either.
Thirty-three of the 72 individuals from the seven terror-associated countries were convicted of very serious terror-related crimes, and were sentenced to at least three years imprisonment. The crimes included use of a weapon of mass destruction, conspiracy to commit a terror act, material support of a terrorist or terror group, international money laundering conspiracy, possession of explosives or missiles, and unlawful possession of a machine gun.
In dismissing the Trump executive order, San Francisco’s Ninth Circuit court of appeals said, “The government has pointed to no evidence…that any alien from any of the countries named in the order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States.”
Proponents of the president’s ban said that Vaughan’s findings should provide Justice with the evidence they need to win their case.
Wait, bingo! I see two toddlers and a teenage boy on a Galaxy S7. Open the gates!
Nancy Pelosi’s vineyard digs could accommodate many refugees.
President Trump’s vetting order is clearly legal under the provisions of section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which says that the president can suspend the entry of any alien or group of aliens if he finds it to be detrimental to the national interest. He should not have to provide any more justification than was already presented in the order, but if judges demand more reasons, here are 72.
Europe is suffering the consequences of their open border policy by allowing thousands to pour in. They have been attacked from within and finally realize that it was a bad decision. Some European nations are now compensating “refugees” to leave while we pay them to stay. The United States has also experienced terror attacks from sea to shining sea. Our new President, Donald Trump is attempting to temporarily pause entry to those that wish to enter our country from nations that have historically sponsored terror and it is clearly legal for him to do so. The Nutty Ninth clearly made a political ruling, ignoring the fact that there have been terror attacks on American soil by citizens of countries listed in the Executive Order.
Why would any American not want their President to do everything in his power to protect them?
Report: 72 convicted of terrorism from ‘Trump 7’ mostly Muslim countries
Category: Politics
Is anyone surprised? Not me. I remember hearing about a lot of these as they originally filtered in. The left is either horrendously ignorant, and thus incompetent to argue their case, or straight-up lying.
“Is anyone surprised”? Not me. And, the left is straight-up lying. It’s what they do.
No surprises here. Lots and lots of MAMs (Military Age Males) … very few women and children.
Nope. No surprises here. At all.
That is because the MAMs are so anxious to bring freedom and prosperity to the nations they came from. NOT! So, according to the proglodytes, we should welcome them into our bosom and wait and see if they try or succeed in killing us for the glory of Allah. Too bad they won’t just kill proggies.
Ever since I stumbled on George Orwell’s description of the concept of Doublethink from his novel, 1984, I have had a better understanding of how and why the Democrats are so blatantly dishonest and hypocritical. Here’s the quote:
To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink.
***********************************************
Does that not describe the modern day Democrat behavior to a “T”?
Excellent point Poetrooper.
Along the lines of feminists attacking males who they accuse of being sexist….
Or, those that protest homophobia along with Islamophobia….
Exactly!
Orwell also foresaw today’s “Political Correctness” in speech in 1984.
He chose to call it “Newspeak”.
Orwell was way ahead of his time. After his experiences in Spain, he got the message.
The currrent rabble, I’ve got my doubts.
Saudi Arabia has lots of room and facilities that could accommodate them and yet they still haven’t taken in a single one. Maybe they know something we don’t? To those saying we need to take every one of them, first thing I’ll ask is what about the number of American homeless people we already have and look what happens to anyone going to a muzzie country and demanding they accommodate Christianity, Judeaism or any other religion.
Didn’t Obama issue a very similar Executive Order a few years ago? And wasn’t the response at the time {crickets}?
Actually, as recent as 2014. Obama used similar provisions six times.
Obama mocks Trump, but has barred immigrants, many Muslim, 6 times
FLASHBACK: Obama Suspended Iraq Refugee Program for Six Months Over Terrorism Fears in 2011
You are missing an important distinction. Under the law, “refugee” is a class of people. That is what Obama banned. He did not ban people based solely on nationality which is against the law and what Trump did.
Actually, the group Trump banned is also a “class” of people. The 7 nations covered by the ban do not cooperate with the US regarding suppressing international terrorism.
Yes, to an extent.
But that is like saying “isn’t driving below the speed limit the same as speeding? When people drive the speed limit, why is there nothing but crickets?”
The 9th’s decision was not whether the order was correct, but rather to lift the temporary restraining order on the EO. To lift the ban, the government had to prove that they would most likely win in the lower courts.
The government did not do that so they lost at the 9th Circuit.
The 9th’s ruling is a mixture of being both correct and incorrect. It’s strange that way.
The 9th got right that the order was too broad and violated the combined laws under USC 1182 and 1152. The president cannot halt immigration based on nationality and that is what he did.
(That’s not the same as the Obama bans which barred certain classes and groups of people from specific nations. Obama did not ban immigration from entire nations.)
Because of that, the government would most likely lose at the trial level.
What the 9th got wrong – and badly wrong – was the idea that they (the judiciary) has the ability to approve the data and threat assessments the Executive Branch base a ban upon. That’s nuts and outside the scope of the separation of powers and immigration laws.
The 9th also got wrong the idea of extending Constitutional protections of due process to people in other countries who had not even applied for a visa. The law gives DHS and the State Department the ability to deny people entry into the country and the 9th basically said “not without a hearing, you can’t.” That’s nuts too.
Trump needs to go back and fix the order to include classes of people that the law allows him to ban. It’s that simple.
“The 9th got right that the order was too broad and violated the combined laws under USC 1182 and 1152. The president cannot halt immigration based on nationality and that is what he did.”
Carter, Iran?
Obama, Iraq?
Roosevelt, Japan, Germany & Italy?
Carter, Iran?
From the Carter order:
Fourth, the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires.
Carter did not ban everyone from one nation. He allowed entry for “compelling and humanitarian reasons” as well as allowing entry for “national interests.”
Source: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=33233
Carter did not ban a nation of people. He made legal classes of people which Trump did not do.
Obama, Iraq?
Obama’s ban left open refugees. Once again, he did not ban people from an entire nation.
Roosevelt, Japan, Germany & Italy?
The law allows for the President to ban people from nations during a time of war. Please point to the Congressional declaration of war with the seven nations because it appears I missed it.
Fair enough.
However, we have three equal branches of government. The Judicial Branch, at the minimum, overreached here.
We are at war with an ideology that vows to kill us, an ideology that exists in those countries, we have to start somewhere to end this insanity. We expect our government to protect us.
ex-OS2,
Sorry I got snarky in my last response.
As I said, I think the 9th got the part on “nationalities” right, and overreached in many other areas. (I only mentioned a couple but there are more.)
I agree with you that we at war or at least in conflict with an ideology that wishes to not only kill us as individuals, but to kill the ideals of the United States.
But we can’t violate our laws and principles to bring around a change like we want. If we do that, we have given more ammunition to those who would call us hypocrites.
Trump’s idea to pause immigration on certain classes of people while seeking better, more efficient and more threat based restrictions on immigration is a great idea.
He just needs to do it in a legal manner.
All he should do is allow people with visas – especially the H-2C visas to come back into the country. That would mean that companies get the workers they want and his ban would not be based on nationality.
All Americans should be concerned about our security. The Democrats and Republicans need to figure this out and stop the rhetoric bullshit.
We are being taken advantage of should learn from the lessons of Europe before it is too late.
Sorry, noncitizens do not have a “right” to enter another sovereign state; entry is a privilege.
The law allows for the President to ban any and all aliens or classes of aliens he see’s fit to protect this country at any time. No-one has a right to come here, they come at the invitation and pleasure of The American Government and can be thrown out at any time.
The law does not allow what you say it does.
Please see 8 USC § 1152(a)(1)(A)
Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.
Try 8 USC 1152 (f)
It most certainly does say what I said it does and gives the President authority to override everything in the case of National Security and besides, the Executive Order in question deals with Nations not a religion. Your quote is specific to Visa’s in any case and even there, The President gets wide latitude and deference.
Your wrong
I see. So you believe that a relative by marriage has some sort of magical powers to override federal law.
I can’t argue with that “thinking” and don’t even want to try.
The law is against you on this. The president cannot ban everyone from a country.
The law also allows for the POTUS to ban classes of immigrants at his discretion on national security grounds, irrespective of whether or not a state of war exists at the time. And as I noted above, citizens of the 7 nations covered by the ban do form a distinct class: specifically, the class formed of citizens of nations who do not cooperate with the US in suppressing international terrorism.
The 9th Circus – and in particular, the judge that issued the original order – each have their heads firmly inserted up their respectives fourth POCs. Yet again.
Then again, 8 USC 1152 also says;
“(B)Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of State to determine the procedures for the processing of immigrant visa applications or the locations where such applications will be processed.”
So, if Trump et al. had taken the time to review the law they could have ordered that all isa applications from Iran, Syria, etc. be processed in those countries.
There are also a couple of things in 8 USC 1182 which could be used to limit immigration from those countries;
“n the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.”
” and who has failed to present documentation of having received vaccination against vaccine-preventable diseases,”
In my not-so-humble opinion, the burden of proving that a visa should be issued is on the would be immigrant. The US has no obligation to issue visas to all comers.
Do you know what your talking about? it seems to me that your just typing a bunch of stuff trying to wear people out.
The President, The AG and The Dept Of State can all ban anyone they deem a threat to The US. Period. Since those countries on the list have no working government that can positively ID who the people in question are and provide records we have no obligation to allow them in for any reason. Boo Fucking Hoo if their panties are in a bunch. I didn’t make them follow a 7th Century Death Cult that turned their countries into piles of shit and I sure as hell shouldn’t have to die because of it
johp,
The President, The AG and The Dept Of State can all ban anyone they deem a threat to The US. Period.
Correct. Now, show that ever person on the affected countries is part of a definitive threat to the United States.
If you want to invoke the “threat” clause to deny people entry into the country, you have to show the threat. Let me know when some 4 month old kid still in diapers and sucking on a bottle is a threat.
From your previous post:
….they come at the invitation and pleasure of The American Government and can be thrown out at any time.
Perhaps you might want to review immigration laws on due process and hearing before a person in the country can be deported or “thrown out.”
don’t have to. They can ban all travel from or to any country. My wifes aunt is an immigration lawyer in DC and has been one for years. No one has any right to immigrate here for any reason and entire countries can be stopped. Sorry you don’t like it but my and my countries security override any non-citizens. You sound like an open borders advocate because if what you say is true then borders are meaningless
Nope. The President gets to determine the threat, not the courts.
also, 8 USC 1157 may be of interest;
“(2) Except as provided in subsection (b), the number of refugees who may be admitted under this section in any fiscal year after fiscal year 1982 shall be such number as the President determines, before the beginning of the fiscal year and after appropriate consultation, is justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest.
(3) Admissions under this subsection shall be allocated among refugees of special humanitarian concern to the United States in accordance with a determination made by the President after appropriate consultation.”
“Why would any American not want their President to do everything in his power to protect them?”
Because they are fucktard Progressives that hate this country? just throwing it out there.
This COULD have been number 73. But no….he had to play with toys far too complex for him.
https://gfycat.com/PlaintiveObedientFlounder
Now that shit was funny!
Sharia permits the followers of Mohammed to posess up to four wives as he did.
Humans generally maintain very close to a one to one ratio of males to females. Oops.
So, what does one do with all those surplus males? They can never have wives, not even one, as someone else has the extras.
Why, ship them off elsewhere! There are few things as trouble-making as perpetually frustrated bachelor humans. They can be deployed elsewhere, safely out of the way, yet usefully employed in colonizing other places and disrupting said other places. Leaving extra wives for those behind, of course.
Getting the picture folks? There is a reason the “refugees” are all young single men. They have exactly -zero- chance of a family back home, unless they score the money to buy one, and if they had money they wouldnt be refugees.
And they are all pussies who refuse to pick up a gun and defend their own nations.
Maybe they can form a Muh-Zee Dutch Rudder Gang with Aleppo as their Corporate Headquarters.