Following through on campaign promises can be good or bad. Ask Obama. As for implementation we'll see how it goes. Some groups are planning to file suit in federal court, claiming the language about singling out certain religious minorities for exceptions violates the constitution.

So purely subjective, emotional, ill-conceived and unquantifiable requirements, then. Sounds about right for Trump.

Who'd have thought he'd be the 'shrillest' of the 'shrill'? How things change, eh?

''As your President, I have no higher duty than to protect the lives of the American people''

He is putting the safety and security of all American citizens above someones hurt feelings. Finally common sense prevails.

But not his.. if someone hurts his feelings, they'll be tweeted out of existence

I think it is very possible he is going to run up huge costs and put the country into more debt. How can he promise so much when the infrastructure isn't there anymore - as Jagwaugh eloquently wrote in a previous post.

His plans will need to be scrutinized; no more magic wand talk, please.

Exactly. The language seems at odds with the constitution.

I did read in one of the New York dailies that H1b visa and permanent residents (green card holders) could be turnedback upon entry to the US, which is rather suprising. Maybe H1b, but green cards? Vetting a person for permanent residency in the US is far stricter than vetting cabinet members, and probably the president. At least you have to show your tax return.

Honestly, this protects no one. It's idiotic.

I thought Trump was some sort of Hitleresque dictator? Wouldn't he just wipe his ass with the constitution?
Oh right, we're being rational again. Well, it seems it's already in effect.
He's simply doing what he promised and what that the people voted him in to do.

If they had a similar law in Germany it would've stopped the Berlin Christmas market killer wouldn't it?

But the wall does not protect the shoreline
And as for Canada Never mind I am sure you are correct and the Mexico wall will be a big help

So because illegals may potentially try to enter by sea then America shouldn't bother to protect it's land border?

A criminal could also break your window to enter your house yet you still have a lock on your front door

The countries impacted by Trump's order are Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia?
The Berlin Christmas market killer was Tunisian!

You do know Tunisia is not part of "Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia".

You know a little basic research before posting would make you look a lot smarter

You do not have locks on your windows?

You my friend are a casuist, Definition; "the use of clever but unsound reasoning"

No.

Tom

Good point

Replace it with the Ansbach suicide bombing and the logic remains true.

If only this order was in place before San Bernardino or Orlando then...oh wait! Those were U.S. born terrorists whose families originated from Pakistan and Afghanistan, respectively.

As marton says, this law doesn't protect anyone. But like all the "security" circus we go through at airports, it gives people the impression they're being kept safe and that's what matters.

So because America has home grown terrorists they should make no effort to ensure that they don't import any others from other countries?

That's almost as bad as martons suggestion that because they can come by sea then America doesn't need a wall on the border.
Going by that logic they don't even need any sort of border controls.

Well it was edot that wrote that, not marton. Still wrong though.
If there were more stringent controls in Europe it would've meant a reduced number of terrorist attacks and rapes. I don't see how you can dispute that?

People holding so-called green cards, making them legal permanent US residents, are included in President Donald Trump’s executive action temporarily banning people from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States, the Department of Homeland security has confirmed to Reuters

“It will bar green card holders,” Gillian Christensen, acting spokeswoman for the department, reportedly said in an email.

Source

"because they can come by sea then America doesn't need a wall on the border.
Going by that logic they don't even need any sort of border controls." Casuist reasoning again, today they have no wall but they do have border controls.

You better tell the US that they can do away with the border controls because the illegal immigrants can just come by sea

Oh wait, they need those controls because even though illegal immigrants could come by sea they could also just hop over the border.

Trump is merely strengthening those border controls by building a wall ''with a big fat door where people can enter and exit the country legally''
I think he's doing this in response to the massive problem the US has with illegal immigrants.

I didn't say don't make an effort but I am not convinced that blocking citizens of these specific countries will do much. I suppose you have to start somewhere?

In terms of the wall or fence, I'm not sure how much ROI the U.S. will get get on it. You're talking 10-20 billion just to build, then annual upkeep and monitoring, to prevent how many people from entering?

In terms of controls in Europe, I get the impression that most of the attacks have been done by secondos or trezos, not by newly arrived refugees or immigrants. Is your argument that immigration controls for Europe should have been more strict 20+ years ago? I'd argue a combination of controls and better integration programs would be more effective than controls alone.

Nutters come from everywhere.

Doing away with the border controls is your idea not mine, tell the US yourself

I posted the wall is useless, not one word about doing away with border controls

"Nutters come from everywhere" Mostly home grown; simply ban babies then after 100 years or so we will have no more rapes or terrorist incidents