Obama To Terrorists: Y'all Come!

[PoliticalChic]

Isn't a President supposed to look out for his people?

By that I mean....the citizens of the nation over which he presides?

Or...am I over-reading Frazer's "The Golden Bough,"...which explained the requirement of leader....'Apocalypse Now' was based on it.


In any case.....why would Obama, by executive order, change the rules of immigration so that those who had known contact with terrorists would be able to gain asylum in this country???

Why?????




1. "Obama Signs Executive Order That Allow Refugees Who Gave “Limited” Terrorist Support Into US

2. .... illegally changing the immigration laws set forward by Congress to allow refugees seeking asylum into the country that have supported terrorists....

3. ....changing the law that was written right after 9/11...

4. The Department of Homeland Security and the State Department recently took it upon themselves—with the help of Obama of course—to illegally change the laws of congress. ...to allow those seeking asylum into the country even if they had given limited material support to terrorists.





5. The list of those being allowed into the country has expanded to now include:

...support without an intent to further any terrorist or violent activities,...

... in the ordinary course of business transactions or social or family interactions,...

... i provided certain humanitarian assistance ..

... provided support under significant pressure that does not quite rise to the level of duress ...




6. The director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, Jessica Vaughan, explains, “[T]here is a very legitimate question as to whether the administration actually has the authority to change the law in this way. It seems to me that they are announcing that they will be disregarding yet another law written by Congress that they don’t like and are replacing it with their own guidelines, which in this case appear to be extremely broad and vague, and which are sure to be exploited by those seeking to game our generous refugee admissions program.”

7. “The administration already approves of the admission of gang members as asylees and criminals....

8. This is how we end up with families like the Tsarnaev brothers [the Boston marathon bombers], who were originally admitted for political asylum.”





9. .... the president once again abused the powers of his office and acted in an illegal and unconstitutional manner....

10. .... a loophole for terrorists to legally and more easily gain entry into our country..."
https://www.mrconservative.com/2014...-that-gave-limited-terrorist-support-into-us/




Where is the need for individuals with these propensities???

These are people who would be cheering and giving out candy after another 9/11.



Who voted for this Obama guy????

Who did this to us????

 

[PoliticalChic]

Another problem solved by Obama!

Clearly there weren't enough terrorist associates in America.




Where will they all rush to for employment?

They might get the wrong idea when they see the name 'Target' at the mall.

 

[Sallow]

Another problem solved by Obama!

Clearly there weren't enough terrorist associates in America.




Where will they all rush to for employment?

They might get the wrong idea when they see the name 'Target' at the mall.

Interesting PC.

So all people who associated with Terrorist groups should be kicked out?

Like say, those who associated with the IRA or the Stern Gang?

That's going to close down a lot of bars and delis.

But we will be safe!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Another problem solved by Obama!

Clearly there weren't enough terrorist associates in America.




Where will they all rush to for employment?

They might get the wrong idea when they see the name 'Target' at the mall.

Interesting PC.

So all people who associated with Terrorist groups should be kicked out?

Like say, those who associated with the IRA or the Stern Gang?

That's going to close down a lot of bars and delis.

But we will be safe!

"So all people who associated with Terrorist groups should be kicked out?"

Seems we cannot begin until I teach you how to read.



1. OK....let's begin:

im·mi·grate (ĭm′ĭ-grāt&#8242
v. im·mi·grat·ed, im·mi·grat·ing, im·mi·grates
v.intr.
To enter and settle in a country or region to which one is not native.

The OP is about changes to immigration policy.

Do you understand how foolish you appear in writing this:
"So all people who associated with Terrorist groups should be kicked out?"



a. How amusing that I, an immigrant, have to teach you English.




2. Now, let's proceed to your dishonesty in support of the indefensible....Barack Hussein Obama, the most merciful, the most compassionate.

"Like say, those who associated with the IRA or the Stern Gang?"

How diaphanous (get the dictionary) to pretend that the issue is Irish or Jewish folk....Clearly Obama (peace be on him) has an inordinate (dictionary?) fondness for Islamofascists, support of the Muslim Brotherhood with weapons, and now waving them into the country....

...and it seems that you have bought into same.



a. Care to explain the nation's dire need for terrorist-associated folks?
Did I miss that section in the want ads?



Get off your knees and stand up for America.

 

[hazlnut]

Another problem solved by Obama!

Clearly there weren't enough terrorist associates in America.




Where will they all rush to for employment?

They might get the wrong idea when they see the name 'Target' at the mall.

Interesting PC.

So all people who associated with Terrorist groups should be kicked out?

Like say, those who associated with the IRA or the Stern Gang?

That's going to close down a lot of bars and delis.

But we will be safe!

This is good, we can show loose association with a lot of "Christians" and Health Care Clinic bombers and murders of doctors.

And we can associate all NRA members with Tim McVey.

Buh-bye, nutters.

 

[ogibillm]

politicalchic, your op is a mess. before you go handing out english lessons perhaps you should learn to post coherently and how to attribute quotes to their source.

that said, the majority of your post seems to be from an article on a conservative website that quotes a conservative organization. not exactly unbiased.

here is the published notice in the federal register
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/02/05/2014-02357/exercise-of-authority-under-section-212d3bi-of-the-immigration-and-nationality-act

and here's a link to Michael Chertoff using the same powers in 2007.
ilink | USCIS

and finally a link and quote of the pertinent part of the INA that grants the power to make such a change

(B) (i) 20b/ 20c/ The Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Secretary of Homeland Security, after consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, may determine in such Secretary's sole unreviewable discretion that subsection (a)(3)(B) shall not apply with respect to an alien within the scope of that subsection or that subsection (a)(3)(B)(vi)(III) shall not apply to a group within the scope of that subsection, except that no such wa iver may be extended to an alien who is within the scope of subsection (a)(3)(B)(i)(II), no such waiver may be extended to an alien who is a member or representative of, has voluntarily and knowingly engaged in or endorsed or espoused or persuaded others to endorse or espouse or support terrorist activity on behalf of, or has voluntarily and knowingly received military-type training from a terrorist organization that is described in subclause (I) or (II) of subsection (a)(3)(B)(vi), and no such waiver may b e extended to a group that has engaged terrorist activity against the United States or another democratic country or that has purposefully engaged in a pattern or practice of terrorist activity that is directed at civilians. Such a determination shall neither prejudice the ability of the United States Government to commence criminal or civil proceedings involving a beneficiary of such a determination or any other person, nor create any substantive or procedural right or benefit for a beneficiary of such a d etermination or any other person. Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including section 2241 of title 28, or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title, no court shall have jurisdiction to review such a determination or revocation except in a proceeding for review of a final order of removal pursuant to section 1252 of this title, and review shall be limited to the extent provided in section 1252(a)(2)(D). The Secretary of State may not ex ercise the discretion provided in this clause with respect to an alien at any time during which the alien is the subject of pending removal proceedings under section 1229a of this title.

ilink | USCIS

so, do you have anything other than your biased source to back up your claim that this is an abuse of powers, illegal, unconstitutional, or in any way improper?

 

[Edgetho]

Another problem solved by Obama!

Clearly there weren't enough terrorist associates in America.




Where will they all rush to for employment?

They might get the wrong idea when they see the name 'Target' at the mall.

Interesting PC.

So all people who associated with Terrorist groups should be kicked out?

Like say, those who associated with the IRA or the Stern Gang?

That's going to close down a lot of bars and delis.

But we will be safe!

Has the IRA or Lehi committed acts of Terror against the United States?

What juvenile douche you are.

 

[Edgetho]

politicalchic, your op is a mess. before you go handing out english lessons perhaps you should learn to post coherently and how to attribute quotes to their source.

that said, the majority of your post seems to be from an article on a conservative website that quotes a conservative organization. not exactly unbiased.

here is the published notice in the federal register
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/02/05/2014-02357/exercise-of-authority-under-section-212d3bi-of-the-immigration-and-nationality-act

and here's a link to Michael Chertoff using the same powers in 2007.
ilink | USCIS

and finally a link and quote of the pertinent part of the INA that grants the power to make such a change

(B) (i) 20b/ 20c/ The Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Secretary of Homeland Security, after consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, may determine in such Secretary's sole unreviewable discretion that subsection (a)(3)(B) shall not apply with respect to an alien within the scope of that subsection or that subsection (a)(3)(B)(vi)(III) shall not apply to a group within the scope of that subsection, except that no such wa iver may be extended to an alien who is within the scope of subsection (a)(3)(B)(i)(II), no such waiver may be extended to an alien who is a member or representative of, has voluntarily and knowingly engaged in or endorsed or espoused or persuaded others to endorse or espouse or support terrorist activity on behalf of, or has voluntarily and knowingly received military-type training from a terrorist organization that is described in subclause (I) or (II) of subsection (a)(3)(B)(vi), and no such waiver may b e extended to a group that has engaged terrorist activity against the United States or another democratic country or that has purposefully engaged in a pattern or practice of terrorist activity that is directed at civilians. Such a determination shall neither prejudice the ability of the United States Government to commence criminal or civil proceedings involving a beneficiary of such a determination or any other person, nor create any substantive or procedural right or benefit for a beneficiary of such a d etermination or any other person. Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including section 2241 of title 28, or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title, no court shall have jurisdiction to review such a determination or revocation except in a proceeding for review of a final order of removal pursuant to section 1252 of this title, and review shall be limited to the extent provided in section 1252(a)(2)(D). The Secretary of State may not ex ercise the discretion provided in this clause with respect to an alien at any time during which the alien is the subject of pending removal proceedings under section 1229a of this title.

ilink | USCIS

so, do you have anything other than your biased source to back up your claim that this is an abuse of powers, illegal, unconstitutional, or in any way improper?

You have done nothing to refute PC's claim. All you've done is talk like you have a paper asshole while trying to shift the burden of proof to PC.

She posted it, the burden is on you to disprove it.

Or better yet, just shut the **** up.

That would be the smart play for you right now

 

[Edgetho]

Another problem solved by Obama!

Clearly there weren't enough terrorist associates in America.




Where will they all rush to for employment?

They might get the wrong idea when they see the name 'Target' at the mall.

Interesting PC.

So all people who associated with Terrorist groups should be kicked out?

Like say, those who associated with the IRA or the Stern Gang?

That's going to close down a lot of bars and delis.

But we will be safe!

This is good, we can show loose association with a lot of "Christians" and Health Care Clinic bombers and murders of doctors.

And we can associate all NRA members with Tim McVey.

Buh-bye, nutters.

So you think accusing us of what you're actually guilty of works, huh?

Like you're five years old on the playground?

What a juvenile douchebag you are

Remember the Occupy scumbags who wanted to blow up the bridges in Cleveland? At rush hour? In order to inflict the most casualties and kill the most people?

Go eat some drano, *****

 

[PoliticalChic]

politicalchic, your op is a mess. before you go handing out english lessons perhaps you should learn to post coherently and how to attribute quotes to their source.

that said, the majority of your post seems to be from an article on a conservative website that quotes a conservative organization. not exactly unbiased.

here is the published notice in the federal register
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/02/05/2014-02357/exercise-of-authority-under-section-212d3bi-of-the-immigration-and-nationality-act

and here's a link to Michael Chertoff using the same powers in 2007.
ilink | USCIS

and finally a link and quote of the pertinent part of the INA that grants the power to make such a change

(B) (i) 20b/ 20c/ The Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Secretary of Homeland Security, after consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, may determine in such Secretary's sole unreviewable discretion that subsection (a)(3)(B) shall not apply with respect to an alien within the scope of that subsection or that subsection (a)(3)(B)(vi)(III) shall not apply to a group within the scope of that subsection, except that no such wa iver may be extended to an alien who is within the scope of subsection (a)(3)(B)(i)(II), no such waiver may be extended to an alien who is a member or representative of, has voluntarily and knowingly engaged in or endorsed or espoused or persuaded others to endorse or espouse or support terrorist activity on behalf of, or has voluntarily and knowingly received military-type training from a terrorist organization that is described in subclause (I) or (II) of subsection (a)(3)(B)(vi), and no such waiver may b e extended to a group that has engaged terrorist activity against the United States or another democratic country or that has purposefully engaged in a pattern or practice of terrorist activity that is directed at civilians. Such a determination shall neither prejudice the ability of the United States Government to commence criminal or civil proceedings involving a beneficiary of such a determination or any other person, nor create any substantive or procedural right or benefit for a beneficiary of such a d etermination or any other person. Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including section 2241 of title 28, or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title, no court shall have jurisdiction to review such a determination or revocation except in a proceeding for review of a final order of removal pursuant to section 1252 of this title, and review shall be limited to the extent provided in section 1252(a)(2)(D). The Secretary of State may not ex ercise the discretion provided in this clause with respect to an alien at any time during which the alien is the subject of pending removal proceedings under section 1229a of this title.

ilink | USCIS

so, do you have anything other than your biased source to back up your claim that this is an abuse of powers, illegal, unconstitutional, or in any way improper?

1. "The Obama administration has issued new exemptions to a law that bars certain asylum-seekers and refugees who provided “limited material support” to terrorists who are believed to pose no threat from the U.S.
The Department of Homeland Security and the State Department published the new exemptions Wednesday in the Federal Register to narrow a ban in the Immigration and Nationality Act excluding refugees and asylum seekers who had provided limited material support, no matter how minor, to terrorists.
“These exemptions cover five kinds of limited material support that have adversely and unfairly affected refugees and asylum seekers with no tangible connection to terrorism: material support that was insignificant in amount or provided incidentally in the course of everyday social, commercial, family or humanitarian interactions, or under significant pressure,” a DHS official explained to The Daily Caller."
» Obama allows immigrants with ?limited? terror contact into U.S. Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!




2. "...do you have anything other than your biased source to back up your claim that this is an abuse of powers, illegal, unconstitutional, or in any way improper?"

Yup.

The United States Constitution....articles 1 and 2.

 

[ogibillm]

politicalchic, your op is a mess. before you go handing out english lessons perhaps you should learn to post coherently and how to attribute quotes to their source.

that said, the majority of your post seems to be from an article on a conservative website that quotes a conservative organization. not exactly unbiased.

here is the published notice in the federal register
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/02/05/2014-02357/exercise-of-authority-under-section-212d3bi-of-the-immigration-and-nationality-act

and here's a link to Michael Chertoff using the same powers in 2007.
ilink | USCIS

and finally a link and quote of the pertinent part of the INA that grants the power to make such a change

(B) (i) 20b/ 20c/ The Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Secretary of Homeland Security, after consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, may determine in such Secretary's sole unreviewable discretion that subsection (a)(3)(B) shall not apply with respect to an alien within the scope of that subsection or that subsection (a)(3)(B)(vi)(III) shall not apply to a group within the scope of that subsection, except that no such wa iver may be extended to an alien who is within the scope of subsection (a)(3)(B)(i)(II), no such waiver may be extended to an alien who is a member or representative of, has voluntarily and knowingly engaged in or endorsed or espoused or persuaded others to endorse or espouse or support terrorist activity on behalf of, or has voluntarily and knowingly received military-type training from a terrorist organization that is described in subclause (I) or (II) of subsection (a)(3)(B)(vi), and no such waiver may b e extended to a group that has engaged terrorist activity against the United States or another democratic country or that has purposefully engaged in a pattern or practice of terrorist activity that is directed at civilians. Such a determination shall neither prejudice the ability of the United States Government to commence criminal or civil proceedings involving a beneficiary of such a determination or any other person, nor create any substantive or procedural right or benefit for a beneficiary of such a d etermination or any other person. Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including section 2241 of title 28, or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title, no court shall have jurisdiction to review such a determination or revocation except in a proceeding for review of a final order of removal pursuant to section 1252 of this title, and review shall be limited to the extent provided in section 1252(a)(2)(D). The Secretary of State may not ex ercise the discretion provided in this clause with respect to an alien at any time during which the alien is the subject of pending removal proceedings under section 1229a of this title.

ilink | USCIS

so, do you have anything other than your biased source to back up your claim that this is an abuse of powers, illegal, unconstitutional, or in any way improper?

You have done nothing to refute PC's claim. All you've done is talk like you have a paper asshole while trying to shift the burden of proof to PC.

She posted it, the burden is on you to disprove it.

Or better yet, just shut the **** up.

That would be the smart play for you right now

that's just it. i have proved she's wrong. i posted the actual notice, an example of a previous notice using the same powers, and the text of the pertinent part of the INA that gives the secretary of homeland security and the secretary of state the power to issue such a notice.

if she has some sort of argument why that is invalid in this instance she can feel free to make that case - coherently, sourced, and preferably with fewer ellipses.

 

[ogibillm]

politicalchic, your op is a mess. before you go handing out english lessons perhaps you should learn to post coherently and how to attribute quotes to their source.

that said, the majority of your post seems to be from an article on a conservative website that quotes a conservative organization. not exactly unbiased.

here is the published notice in the federal register
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/02/05/2014-02357/exercise-of-authority-under-section-212d3bi-of-the-immigration-and-nationality-act

and here's a link to Michael Chertoff using the same powers in 2007.
ilink | USCIS

and finally a link and quote of the pertinent part of the INA that grants the power to make such a change

(B) (i) 20b/ 20c/ The Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Secretary of Homeland Security, after consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, may determine in such Secretary's sole unreviewable discretion that subsection (a)(3)(B) shall not apply with respect to an alien within the scope of that subsection or that subsection (a)(3)(B)(vi)(III) shall not apply to a group within the scope of that subsection, except that no such wa iver may be extended to an alien who is within the scope of subsection (a)(3)(B)(i)(II), no such waiver may be extended to an alien who is a member or representative of, has voluntarily and knowingly engaged in or endorsed or espoused or persuaded others to endorse or espouse or support terrorist activity on behalf of, or has voluntarily and knowingly received military-type training from a terrorist organization that is described in subclause (I) or (II) of subsection (a)(3)(B)(vi), and no such waiver may b e extended to a group that has engaged terrorist activity against the United States or another democratic country or that has purposefully engaged in a pattern or practice of terrorist activity that is directed at civilians. Such a determination shall neither prejudice the ability of the United States Government to commence criminal or civil proceedings involving a beneficiary of such a determination or any other person, nor create any substantive or procedural right or benefit for a beneficiary of such a d etermination or any other person. Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including section 2241 of title 28, or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title, no court shall have jurisdiction to review such a determination or revocation except in a proceeding for review of a final order of removal pursuant to section 1252 of this title, and review shall be limited to the extent provided in section 1252(a)(2)(D). The Secretary of State may not ex ercise the discretion provided in this clause with respect to an alien at any time during which the alien is the subject of pending removal proceedings under section 1229a of this title.

ilink | USCIS

so, do you have anything other than your biased source to back up your claim that this is an abuse of powers, illegal, unconstitutional, or in any way improper?

1. "The Obama administration has issued new exemptions to a law that bars certain asylum-seekers and refugees who provided “limited material support” to terrorists who are believed to pose no threat from the U.S.
The Department of Homeland Security and the State Department published the new exemptions Wednesday in the Federal Register to narrow a ban in the Immigration and Nationality Act excluding refugees and asylum seekers who had provided limited material support, no matter how minor, to terrorists.
“These exemptions cover five kinds of limited material support that have adversely and unfairly affected refugees and asylum seekers with no tangible connection to terrorism: material support that was insignificant in amount or provided incidentally in the course of everyday social, commercial, family or humanitarian interactions, or under significant pressure,” a DHS official explained to The Daily Caller."
» Obama allows immigrants with ?limited? terror contact into U.S. Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!




2. "...do you have anything other than your biased source to back up your claim that this is an abuse of powers, illegal, unconstitutional, or in any way improper?"

Yup.

The United States Constitution....articles 1 and 2.

i posted for you the portion of the law that grants the secretary of homeland defense and the secretary of state the ability to grant exemptions after consultation with each other and the attorney general. that's a part of the law that was passed by congress and signed by the president - satisfying acticles I and II of the constitution.

so have they acted outside of the law by granting these waivers?

 

[PoliticalChic]

politicalchic, your op is a mess. before you go handing out english lessons perhaps you should learn to post coherently and how to attribute quotes to their source.

that said, the majority of your post seems to be from an article on a conservative website that quotes a conservative organization. not exactly unbiased.

here is the published notice in the federal register
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/02/05/2014-02357/exercise-of-authority-under-section-212d3bi-of-the-immigration-and-nationality-act

and here's a link to Michael Chertoff using the same powers in 2007.
ilink | USCIS

and finally a link and quote of the pertinent part of the INA that grants the power to make such a change

ilink | USCIS

so, do you have anything other than your biased source to back up your claim that this is an abuse of powers, illegal, unconstitutional, or in any way improper?

1. "The Obama administration has issued new exemptions to a law that bars certain asylum-seekers and refugees who provided “limited material support” to terrorists who are believed to pose no threat from the U.S.
The Department of Homeland Security and the State Department published the new exemptions Wednesday in the Federal Register to narrow a ban in the Immigration and Nationality Act excluding refugees and asylum seekers who had provided limited material support, no matter how minor, to terrorists.
“These exemptions cover five kinds of limited material support that have adversely and unfairly affected refugees and asylum seekers with no tangible connection to terrorism: material support that was insignificant in amount or provided incidentally in the course of everyday social, commercial, family or humanitarian interactions, or under significant pressure,” a DHS official explained to The Daily Caller."
» Obama allows immigrants with ?limited? terror contact into U.S. Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!




2. "...do you have anything other than your biased source to back up your claim that this is an abuse of powers, illegal, unconstitutional, or in any way improper?"

Yup.

The United States Constitution....articles 1 and 2.

i posted for you the portion of the law that grants the secretary of homeland defense and the secretary of state the ability to grant exemptions after consultation with each other and the attorney general. that's a part of the law that was passed by congress and signed by the president - satisfying acticles I and II of the constitution.

so have they acted outside of the law by granting these waivers?

The Constitution is the law of the land.

Surely you know that.

 

[Edgetho]

politicalchic, your op is a mess. before you go handing out english lessons perhaps you should learn to post coherently and how to attribute quotes to their source.

that said, the majority of your post seems to be from an article on a conservative website that quotes a conservative organization. not exactly unbiased.

here is the published notice in the federal register
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/02/05/2014-02357/exercise-of-authority-under-section-212d3bi-of-the-immigration-and-nationality-act

and here's a link to Michael Chertoff using the same powers in 2007.
ilink | USCIS

and finally a link and quote of the pertinent part of the INA that grants the power to make such a change

ilink | USCIS

so, do you have anything other than your biased source to back up your claim that this is an abuse of powers, illegal, unconstitutional, or in any way improper?

You have done nothing to refute PC's claim. All you've done is talk like you have a paper asshole while trying to shift the burden of proof to PC.

She posted it, the burden is on you to disprove it.

Or better yet, just shut the **** up.

That would be the smart play for you right now

that's just it. i have proved she's wrong. i posted the actual notice, an example of a previous notice using the same powers, and the text of the pertinent part of the INA that gives the secretary of homeland security and the secretary of state the power to issue such a notice.

if she has some sort of argument why that is invalid in this instance she can feel free to make that case - coherently, sourced, and preferably with fewer ellipses.

No you didn't, lying ****. You only posted PART of the notice

While the administration says the rule change is reasonable, former State Department official and current director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration StudiesJessica Vaughan questioned the administration’s right to unilaterally change the law.

“[T]here is a very legitimate question as to whether the administration actually has the authority to change the law in this way,” Vaughan wrote in an email to TheDC. “It seems to me that they are announcing that they will be disregarding yet another law written by Congress that they don’t like and are replacing it with their own guidelines, which in this case appear to be extremely broad and vague, and which are sure to be exploited by those seeking to game our generous refugee admissions program.”



Read more: Obama admin changes immigration law, allows immigrants who supported terrorists into US | The Daily Caller

Following consultations with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State have determined that the grounds of inadmissibility at section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B), bar certain aliens who do not pose a national security or public safety risk from admission to the United States and from obtaining immigration benefits or other status. Accordingly, consistent with prior exercises of the exemption authority, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General, hereby conclude, as a matter of discretion in accordance with the authority granted by INA section 212(d)(3)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(B)(i), as amended, as well as the foreign policy and national security interests deemed relevant in these consultations, that paragraphs 212(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI)(bb) and (dd) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI)(bb) and (dd), shall not apply with respect to an alien who provided limited material support to an organization described in section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III), or to a member of such an organization, or to an individual described in section 212(a)(3)(B)((iv)(VI)(bb) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI)(bb), that involves (1) certain routine commercial transactions or certain routine social transactions (i.e., in the satisfaction of certain well-established or verifiable family, social, or cultural obligations), (2) certain humanitarian assistance, or (3) substantial pressure that does not rise to the level of duress, provided, however, that the alien satisfies the relevant agency authority that the alien:
(a) Is seeking a benefit or protection under the INA and has been determined to be otherwise eligible for the benefit or protection;
(b) Has undergone and passed all relevant background and security checks;
(c) Has fully disclosed, in all relevant applications and/or interviews with U.S. government representatives and agents, the nature and circumstances of any material support provided and any other activity or association falling within the scope of section 212(a)(3)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B), as well as all contact with a terrorist organization and its members;
(d) Has not provided the material support with any intent or desire to assist any terrorist organization or terrorist activity;
(e) Has not provided material support (1) that the alien knew or reasonably should have known could directly be used to engage in terrorist or violent activity or (2) to any individual who the alien knew or reasonably should have known had committed or planned to commit a terrorist activity on behalf of a designated terrorist organization, as described in section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(I) or (II) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(I) or (II);
(f) Has not provided material support to terrorist activities that he or she knew or reasonably should have known targeted noncombatant persons, U.S. citizens, or U.S. interests;
(g) Has not provided material support that the alien knew or reasonably should have known involved providing weapons, ammunition, explosives, or components thereof, or the transportation or concealment of such items;
(h) Has not provided material support in the form of military-type training (as defined in section 2339D(c)(1) of title 18, United States Code);
(i) Has not engaged in any other terrorist activity, including but not limited to providing material support to a designated terrorist organization, as described in section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(I) or (II) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(I) or (II), to which no other exemption applies;
(j) Poses no danger to the safety and security of the United States; and
(k) Warrants an exemption from the relevant inadmissibility provision in the totality of the circumstances.
Implementation of this determination will be made by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), in consultation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), or by U.S. consular officers, as applicable, who shall ascertain, to their satisfaction, and in their discretion, that the particular alien meets each of the criteria set forth above.
This exercise of authority may be revoked as a matter of discretion and without notice at any time with respect to any and all persons subject to it. Any determination made under this exercise of authority as set out above can inform but shall not control a decision regarding any subsequent benefit or protection applications, unless such exercise of authority has been revoked. This exercise of authority shall not be construed to prejudice, in any way, the ability of the U.S. government to commence subsequent criminal or civil proceedings in accordance with U.S. law involving any beneficiary of this exercise of authority (or any other person). This exercise of authority creates no substantive or procedural right or benefit that is legally enforceable by any party against the United States or its agencies or officers or any other person.
In accordance with section 212(d)(3)(B)(ii) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(B)(ii), a report on the aliens to whom this exercise of authority is applied, on the basis of case-by-case decisions by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security or by the U.S. Department of State, shall be provided to the specified congressional committees not later than 90 days after the end of the fiscal year.
This determination is based on an assessment related to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States as they apply to the particular persons described herein and shall not have any application with respect to other persons or to other provisions of U.S. law.
Jeh Charles Johnson,
Secretary of Homeland Security.
John F. Kerry,
Secretary of State.

Ducks quack, babies cry, dogs bark..... dimocraps lie.

You're just another sick, diseased, lying pile of shit dimocrap.

Are there no dimocraps with ANY integrity on this Board?

None?

 

[ogibillm]

You have done nothing to refute PC's claim. All you've done is talk like you have a paper asshole while trying to shift the burden of proof to PC.

She posted it, the burden is on you to disprove it.

Or better yet, just shut the **** up.

That would be the smart play for you right now

that's just it. i have proved she's wrong. i posted the actual notice, an example of a previous notice using the same powers, and the text of the pertinent part of the INA that gives the secretary of homeland security and the secretary of state the power to issue such a notice.

if she has some sort of argument why that is invalid in this instance she can feel free to make that case - coherently, sourced, and preferably with fewer ellipses.

No you didn't, lying ****. You only posted PART of the notice

While the administration says the rule change is reasonable, former State Department official and current director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration StudiesJessica Vaughan questioned the administration’s right to unilaterally change the law.

“[T]here is a very legitimate question as to whether the administration actually has the authority to change the law in this way,” Vaughan wrote in an email to TheDC. “It seems to me that they are announcing that they will be disregarding yet another law written by Congress that they don’t like and are replacing it with their own guidelines, which in this case appear to be extremely broad and vague, and which are sure to be exploited by those seeking to game our generous refugee admissions program.”



Read more: Obama admin changes immigration law, allows immigrants who supported terrorists into US | The Daily Caller

Following consultations with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State have determined that the grounds of inadmissibility at section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B), bar certain aliens who do not pose a national security or public safety risk from admission to the United States and from obtaining immigration benefits or other status. Accordingly, consistent with prior exercises of the exemption authority, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General, hereby conclude, as a matter of discretion in accordance with the authority granted by INA section 212(d)(3)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(B)(i), as amended, as well as the foreign policy and national security interests deemed relevant in these consultations, that paragraphs 212(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI)(bb) and (dd) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI)(bb) and (dd), shall not apply with respect to an alien who provided limited material support to an organization described in section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III), or to a member of such an organization, or to an individual described in section 212(a)(3)(B)((iv)(VI)(bb) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI)(bb), that involves (1) certain routine commercial transactions or certain routine social transactions (i.e., in the satisfaction of certain well-established or verifiable family, social, or cultural obligations), (2) certain humanitarian assistance, or (3) substantial pressure that does not rise to the level of duress, provided, however, that the alien satisfies the relevant agency authority that the alien:
(a) Is seeking a benefit or protection under the INA and has been determined to be otherwise eligible for the benefit or protection;
(b) Has undergone and passed all relevant background and security checks;
(c) Has fully disclosed, in all relevant applications and/or interviews with U.S. government representatives and agents, the nature and circumstances of any material support provided and any other activity or association falling within the scope of section 212(a)(3)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B), as well as all contact with a terrorist organization and its members;
(d) Has not provided the material support with any intent or desire to assist any terrorist organization or terrorist activity;
(e) Has not provided material support (1) that the alien knew or reasonably should have known could directly be used to engage in terrorist or violent activity or (2) to any individual who the alien knew or reasonably should have known had committed or planned to commit a terrorist activity on behalf of a designated terrorist organization, as described in section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(I) or (II) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(I) or (II);
(f) Has not provided material support to terrorist activities that he or she knew or reasonably should have known targeted noncombatant persons, U.S. citizens, or U.S. interests;
(g) Has not provided material support that the alien knew or reasonably should have known involved providing weapons, ammunition, explosives, or components thereof, or the transportation or concealment of such items;
(h) Has not provided material support in the form of military-type training (as defined in section 2339D(c)(1) of title 18, United States Code);
(i) Has not engaged in any other terrorist activity, including but not limited to providing material support to a designated terrorist organization, as described in section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(I) or (II) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(I) or (II), to which no other exemption applies;
(j) Poses no danger to the safety and security of the United States; and
(k) Warrants an exemption from the relevant inadmissibility provision in the totality of the circumstances.
Implementation of this determination will be made by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), in consultation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), or by U.S. consular officers, as applicable, who shall ascertain, to their satisfaction, and in their discretion, that the particular alien meets each of the criteria set forth above.
This exercise of authority may be revoked as a matter of discretion and without notice at any time with respect to any and all persons subject to it. Any determination made under this exercise of authority as set out above can inform but shall not control a decision regarding any subsequent benefit or protection applications, unless such exercise of authority has been revoked. This exercise of authority shall not be construed to prejudice, in any way, the ability of the U.S. government to commence subsequent criminal or civil proceedings in accordance with U.S. law involving any beneficiary of this exercise of authority (or any other person). This exercise of authority creates no substantive or procedural right or benefit that is legally enforceable by any party against the United States or its agencies or officers or any other person.
In accordance with section 212(d)(3)(B)(ii) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(B)(ii), a report on the aliens to whom this exercise of authority is applied, on the basis of case-by-case decisions by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security or by the U.S. Department of State, shall be provided to the specified congressional committees not later than 90 days after the end of the fiscal year.
This determination is based on an assessment related to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States as they apply to the particular persons described herein and shall not have any application with respect to other persons or to other provisions of U.S. law.
Jeh Charles Johnson,
Secretary of Homeland Security.
John F. Kerry,
Secretary of State.

Ducks quack, babies cry, dogs bark..... dimocraps lie.

You're just another sick, diseased, lying pile of shit dimocrap.

Are there no dimocraps with ANY integrity on this Board?

None?

i'm sorry, when i link to something and state what it is i consider that posted. since i did not quote the entirety of the text (or even any of it) i suppose you are technically right about what i posted.

that in no way changes the argument about whether the notice was illegal or unconstitutional, which still has not been successfully argued.

 

[ogibillm]

1. "The Obama administration has issued new exemptions to a law that bars certain asylum-seekers and refugees who provided “limited material support” to terrorists who are believed to pose no threat from the U.S.
The Department of Homeland Security and the State Department published the new exemptions Wednesday in the Federal Register to narrow a ban in the Immigration and Nationality Act excluding refugees and asylum seekers who had provided limited material support, no matter how minor, to terrorists.
“These exemptions cover five kinds of limited material support that have adversely and unfairly affected refugees and asylum seekers with no tangible connection to terrorism: material support that was insignificant in amount or provided incidentally in the course of everyday social, commercial, family or humanitarian interactions, or under significant pressure,” a DHS official explained to The Daily Caller."
» Obama allows immigrants with ?limited? terror contact into U.S. Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!




2. "...do you have anything other than your biased source to back up your claim that this is an abuse of powers, illegal, unconstitutional, or in any way improper?"

Yup.

The United States Constitution....articles 1 and 2.

i posted for you the portion of the law that grants the secretary of homeland defense and the secretary of state the ability to grant exemptions after consultation with each other and the attorney general. that's a part of the law that was passed by congress and signed by the president - satisfying acticles I and II of the constitution.

so have they acted outside of the law by granting these waivers?

The Constitution is the law of the land.

Surely you know that.

that's not being disputed and you're not being honest by pretending it is.

is the INA, a law passed by congress and signed by the president, constitutional? if it is, as it must be assumed until it is found otherwise in the courts, then the waivers are in accordance with the powers granted by the law.

or do you have any evidence to suggest that the waivers are not allowed under Section 212(d)(3)(B)(i)?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Another problem solved by Obama!

Clearly there weren't enough terrorist associates in America.




Where will they all rush to for employment?

They might get the wrong idea when they see the name 'Target' at the mall.

Interesting PC.

So all people who associated with Terrorist groups should be kicked out?

Like say, those who associated with the IRA or the Stern Gang?

That's going to close down a lot of bars and delis.

But we will be safe!

This is good, we can show loose association with a lot of "Christians" and Health Care Clinic bombers and murders of doctors.

And we can associate all NRA members with Tim McVey.

Buh-bye, nutters.

And Baptists.

Don't forget those terrorist Baptists ..............

 

[Edgetho]

that's just it. i have proved she's wrong. i posted the actual notice, an example of a previous notice using the same powers, and the text of the pertinent part of the INA that gives the secretary of homeland security and the secretary of state the power to issue such a notice.

if she has some sort of argument why that is invalid in this instance she can feel free to make that case - coherently, sourced, and preferably with fewer ellipses.

No you didn't, lying ****. You only posted PART of the notice

While the administration says the rule change is reasonable, former State Department official and current director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration StudiesJessica Vaughan questioned the administration’s right to unilaterally change the law.

“[T]here is a very legitimate question as to whether the administration actually has the authority to change the law in this way,” Vaughan wrote in an email to TheDC. “It seems to me that they are announcing that they will be disregarding yet another law written by Congress that they don’t like and are replacing it with their own guidelines, which in this case appear to be extremely broad and vague, and which are sure to be exploited by those seeking to game our generous refugee admissions program.”



Read more: Obama admin changes immigration law, allows immigrants who supported terrorists into US | The Daily Caller

Following consultations with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State have determined that the grounds of inadmissibility at section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B), bar certain aliens who do not pose a national security or public safety risk from admission to the United States and from obtaining immigration benefits or other status. Accordingly, consistent with prior exercises of the exemption authority, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General, hereby conclude, as a matter of discretion in accordance with the authority granted by INA section 212(d)(3)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(B)(i), as amended, as well as the foreign policy and national security interests deemed relevant in these consultations, that paragraphs 212(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI)(bb) and (dd) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI)(bb) and (dd), shall not apply with respect to an alien who provided limited material support to an organization described in section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III), or to a member of such an organization, or to an individual described in section 212(a)(3)(B)((iv)(VI)(bb) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI)(bb), that involves (1) certain routine commercial transactions or certain routine social transactions (i.e., in the satisfaction of certain well-established or verifiable family, social, or cultural obligations), (2) certain humanitarian assistance, or (3) substantial pressure that does not rise to the level of duress, provided, however, that the alien satisfies the relevant agency authority that the alien:
(a) Is seeking a benefit or protection under the INA and has been determined to be otherwise eligible for the benefit or protection;
(b) Has undergone and passed all relevant background and security checks;
(c) Has fully disclosed, in all relevant applications and/or interviews with U.S. government representatives and agents, the nature and circumstances of any material support provided and any other activity or association falling within the scope of section 212(a)(3)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B), as well as all contact with a terrorist organization and its members;
(d) Has not provided the material support with any intent or desire to assist any terrorist organization or terrorist activity;
(e) Has not provided material support (1) that the alien knew or reasonably should have known could directly be used to engage in terrorist or violent activity or (2) to any individual who the alien knew or reasonably should have known had committed or planned to commit a terrorist activity on behalf of a designated terrorist organization, as described in section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(I) or (II) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(I) or (II);
(f) Has not provided material support to terrorist activities that he or she knew or reasonably should have known targeted noncombatant persons, U.S. citizens, or U.S. interests;
(g) Has not provided material support that the alien knew or reasonably should have known involved providing weapons, ammunition, explosives, or components thereof, or the transportation or concealment of such items;
(h) Has not provided material support in the form of military-type training (as defined in section 2339D(c)(1) of title 18, United States Code);
(i) Has not engaged in any other terrorist activity, including but not limited to providing material support to a designated terrorist organization, as described in section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(I) or (II) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(I) or (II), to which no other exemption applies;
(j) Poses no danger to the safety and security of the United States; and
(k) Warrants an exemption from the relevant inadmissibility provision in the totality of the circumstances.
Implementation of this determination will be made by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), in consultation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), or by U.S. consular officers, as applicable, who shall ascertain, to their satisfaction, and in their discretion, that the particular alien meets each of the criteria set forth above.
This exercise of authority may be revoked as a matter of discretion and without notice at any time with respect to any and all persons subject to it. Any determination made under this exercise of authority as set out above can inform but shall not control a decision regarding any subsequent benefit or protection applications, unless such exercise of authority has been revoked. This exercise of authority shall not be construed to prejudice, in any way, the ability of the U.S. government to commence subsequent criminal or civil proceedings in accordance with U.S. law involving any beneficiary of this exercise of authority (or any other person). This exercise of authority creates no substantive or procedural right or benefit that is legally enforceable by any party against the United States or its agencies or officers or any other person.
In accordance with section 212(d)(3)(B)(ii) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(B)(ii), a report on the aliens to whom this exercise of authority is applied, on the basis of case-by-case decisions by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security or by the U.S. Department of State, shall be provided to the specified congressional committees not later than 90 days after the end of the fiscal year.
This determination is based on an assessment related to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States as they apply to the particular persons described herein and shall not have any application with respect to other persons or to other provisions of U.S. law.
Jeh Charles Johnson,
Secretary of Homeland Security.
John F. Kerry,
Secretary of State.

Ducks quack, babies cry, dogs bark..... dimocraps lie.

You're just another sick, diseased, lying pile of shit dimocrap.

Are there no dimocraps with ANY integrity on this Board?

None?

i'm sorry, when i link to something and state what it is i consider that posted. since i did not quote the entirety of the text (or even any of it) i suppose you are technically right about what i posted.

that in no way changes the argument about whether the notice was illegal or unconstitutional, which still has not been successfully argued.

Finally, a cogent thought instead of knee-jerk reaction defending the left's Savior and Lord God.

Of course it hasn't been successfully argued. It has only been suggested.

BTW, how do you 'successfully' argue the unconstitutional abuse of power by a President?

You people may have opened a Pandora's Box for the next president to exploit.

And you may not like how he wields that power as much as you how this scumbag wields his.

And you do. You know you do.

It isn't so much that the Executive's policy on this matter is wrong (it is), it's that they bypassed Congress. To me, that's what counts.

Do you remember some guys named 'Tsarnaev'?

Remember them?

The Russians did everything but strap a GPS to their asses for us.

And our DHS, FBI, NSA and every other part of the Federal Government Law Enforcement, anti-terrorist apparatus fell apart.

Maybe next time it happens, you'll be there watching it happen.

A little dose of reality might be good for you

 

[ogibillm]

No you didn't, lying ****. You only posted PART of the notice

While the administration says the rule change is reasonable, former State Department official and current director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration StudiesJessica Vaughan questioned the administration’s right to unilaterally change the law.

“[T]here is a very legitimate question as to whether the administration actually has the authority to change the law in this way,” Vaughan wrote in an email to TheDC. “It seems to me that they are announcing that they will be disregarding yet another law written by Congress that they don’t like and are replacing it with their own guidelines, which in this case appear to be extremely broad and vague, and which are sure to be exploited by those seeking to game our generous refugee admissions program.”



Read more: Obama admin changes immigration law, allows immigrants who supported terrorists into US | The Daily Caller



Ducks quack, babies cry, dogs bark..... dimocraps lie.

You're just another sick, diseased, lying pile of shit dimocrap.

Are there no dimocraps with ANY integrity on this Board?

None?

i'm sorry, when i link to something and state what it is i consider that posted. since i did not quote the entirety of the text (or even any of it) i suppose you are technically right about what i posted.

that in no way changes the argument about whether the notice was illegal or unconstitutional, which still has not been successfully argued.

Finally, a cogent thought instead of knee-jerk reaction defending the left's Savior and Lord God.

Of course it hasn't been successfully argued. It has only been suggested.

BTW, how do you 'successfully' argue the unconstitutional abuse of power by a President?

start by explaining why the secretaries of state and homeland security aren't able to exercise the powers granted to them in the INA in this fashion. tell us what makes this notice special and outside the bounds of the law.

You people may have opened a Pandora's Box for the next president to exploit.

And you may not like how he wields that power as much as you how this scumbag wields his.

And you do. You know you do.

It isn't so much that the Executive's policy on this matter is wrong (it is), it's that they bypassed Congress. To me, that's what counts.

how is it a bypass of Congress when you exercise the powers granted to you by Congress? it's written into the law. explain why that portion doesn't apply in this case.

 

[hazlnut]

Man, if we could get rid of all the terrorists and traitors, anyone who has threatened the President, anyone who has hinted at armed rebellion against the Federal Government. All these Tea Folks who post on Facebook and Twitter and forums about the next Civil War.

Anyone who has carried a sign: Next Time We Come Armed…

Why wait till Next Time, let's flush theses pieces of crap right now!!