Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Sunday, January 29. 2017

The outrage

Funny, isn't it?  There was no outrage when Obama passed those immigration restrictions in 2015 which Trump just reinstated. None. Stunning media malpractice on Trump suspension of entry.


Also,  What's the real deal on this 'Muslim ban'?


Also, Reynolds:  The immigration debate hurts the Dems most because it makes clear that they don’t really care about American citizens.


Posted by The News Junkie in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 14:37 | Comments (18) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

I saw Chuck Shumer on TV milking this for all it was worth. With a tear in his eye he accused Trump of discrimination based on religion and promised to defend the muslims. No word yet on if he will defend his constituents. The Democrats will fight to the end to insure immigrants can enter the country regardless of their intent or predilection to violence. If it's anti-Trump they are all in.

We need to recognize that Islam is both a religion and a political system probably most closely resembling Nazism. It intends to dominate every country where it can and eventually the world. In this effort that are light years ahead of the Nazis. In the last 10-20 years Islam has taken over or is right now in the process of taking over about two dozen countries around the world. Europe is next and we can see it happening right before our eyes. This isn't about who they pray to it is about who they prey on. It will be ironic if our constitution becomes our suicide pact. I do believe that is what Chuckie and the rest of the Dems are saying.

Also it is important to understand that these sudden demonstrations in airports are well organized by radical islamists and of course the usual suspects on the left. This is not grass roots and we are being taken by a force that intends to destroy us. First the invasion and then the forced conversion or death. Don't believe it just watch Europe. Or you could learn from those countries that have already been invaded and converted. If we fall for this ploy I see a lot of pain in our future.
#1 GoneWithTheWind on 2017-01-29 17:54 (Reply)
Agreed, and succinctly said. Also, "It will be ironic if our constitution becomes our suicide pact." I've been saying this for years, that that is the real danger.
#1.1 XRay on 2017-01-29 18:20 (Reply)
I think the Democrats are misreading the country again on this issue. Also, Senator McCain is a sort of indicator of useless verbiage. He has never lived down, in his own mind anyway, the Keating 5 scandal that he got embroiled with as a freshman Senator. I think his sanctimonious scolding comes from that formative experience.
#1.2 Mike-K (Link) on 2017-01-29 19:51 (Reply)
The MSM has found its new power base, to drive the protests and the outcry against Trump every chance they get. They gin up a story as if the sky is falling. Enter CAIR along with the George Soros operatives and well, you get the picture. I hope that Trump stays strong and those who voted for him as well. Seems to me we have one shot at this and the left is not going down easily. As for Mcain and Grahm, they need to shut the hell up. Still trying to be relevent, but it isn't working. They look like old fools.
#2 Pocono pam on 2017-01-30 01:38 (Reply)
from a Canadian blog
NEO
*that was then...
"On the one-year anniversary of a brazen Ottawa shooting that claimed the life of a 24-year-old Canadian soldier Cpl Cirillo, Justin Trudeau avoided mention of the word terrorism."
this is now...
"Prime Minister Justin Trudeau condemned the shooting, which he described as a "terrorist attack on Muslims in a centre of worship and refuge."

can you spot the difference?
#3 Exasperated on 2017-01-30 06:46 (Reply)
The News Junkie: There was no outrage when Obama passed those immigration restrictions in 2015 which Trump just reinstated.

There are significant differences The Obama Administration instituted more stringent vetting for Iraqi refugees in response to an actual and specific threat, not vague innuendo. The new procedures at the time did not impact green card holders, visa holders, or those who had already been vetted. The new procedures slowed the process. They did not institute an outright ban, as Trump did with Syrian refugees.

The News Junkie: None.

There was significant kickback due to the delays, but the change was largely confined to new applications, so the problem was much more limited in scope.

By the way, this contradicts the oft repeated claim that refugees are not subject to vetting. In fact, men from Iraq are subject to five separate background checks.
#4 Zachriel on 2017-01-30 10:49 (Reply)
By all means check this out at the State department website but you will find that US vistas are not like visas from other countries. US vistas, of any class, do not confer the right to enter the US but only confer to the holder to present oneself at a port of entry to ask for permission to enter the US. While at the port of entry you are also not considered to be in the US. The Judge's ruling in this case is faulty and for a rather enlightening view of what the judge was up to you can google "Place Jourdan" which is a wordpress site and look at the 1/29 article.
#4.1 indyjonesouthere on 2017-01-30 16:55 (Reply)
indyjonesouthere: US vistas, of any class, do not confer the right to enter the US but only confer to the holder to present oneself at a port of entry to ask for permission to enter the US.

All visas are provisional. However, people make plans based on visas, and visa holders have typically already been approved for entry in advance.
#4.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-30 17:11 (Reply)
If they make plans that is a problem they brought on themselves. Again, vistas only grant permission to ask to enter the US. The final vetting is done at the port of entry and this is not new information except for low information travelers and whining SJW's who think laws should make allowances for their behavior.
#4.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2017-01-30 18:19 (Reply)
indyjonesouthere: If they make plans that is a problem they brought on themselves.

So a grandmother who a permanent legal resident for twenty years, who has followed all the rules, who visits her family overseas, and is prevented from reentering the country "brought it on herself"? How so?
#4.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-31 09:32 (Reply)
She was unable to read, write, and understand English...the law of the land was her duty to read and understand. Go to some of the Asian countries and use drugs. You will likely be executed and it is only your fault for failure to grasp laws and consequences. A vista allows you to present yourself at a port of entry to ask permission to enter. It is not permission to enter. You have a problem with understanding very basic logic.
#4.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2017-01-31 15:09 (Reply)
indyjonesouthere: She was unable to read, write, and understand English...the law of the land was her duty to read and understand.

She lived in the U.S. for twenty years, following all the rules of the society she called home. In other words, she didn't do anything to "bring it on herself".
#4.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-31 16:07 (Reply)
Like you, she was unable to comprehend the meaning of what a vista allows and instead choose to believe the myth of what progressives thought a vista should allow. I feel your pain.
#4.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2017-01-31 20:38 (Reply)
indyjonesouthere: Like you, she was unable to comprehend the meaning of what a vista

Not only is your position cruel, but a probable violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In other words, the grandmother played by the rules, but the Trump Administration likely did not.
#4.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-02-01 09:28 (Reply)
You are just having a hissy fit and have abandoned all sense. Evidently reading and understanding what a visa provides the holder is beyond your comprehension.
#4.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2017-02-01 15:02 (Reply)
indyjonesouthere: Evidently reading and understanding what a visa provides the holder is beyond your comprehension.

And apparently constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection of the laws is beyond your ken.
#4.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-02-01 15:31 (Reply)
It isn't remotely in violation of due process or equal protection, it is well established law for decades. A vista confers no rights but the right to ask for permission at a port of entry to enter the US. The customs and immigration people can say no and you go back to your home as you are not a citizen. Again, you are having a hissy fit and SJW as yourself/s reject facts and double down on whining.
#4.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2017-02-01 23:46 (Reply)
indyjonesouthere: A vista confers no rights but the right to ask for permission at a port of entry to enter the US.

A U.S. District Judge has found that "The petitioners have a strong likelihood of success in establishing that the removal of the petitioner and others similarly situated violates their rights to Due Process and Equal Protection guaranteed by the United States Constitution."
#4.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-02-02 08:58 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.