Travel the world with us. Watch and share videos and photos, and also get some amazing travel deals and sales. If you've explored the world, or wish you could, this forum is the starting point for your journeys. Relax and enjoy the world.
9840 messages in 230 discussions
Latest Sep-8 by Cstar1
Latest Sep-7 by Cstar1
1794 messages in 169 discussions
Latest 10/18/17 by Glen (GEAATL)
Latest Sep-5 by Lyndy (Lyndy7)
205 messages in 43 discussions
Latest Aug-29 by Cstar1
155 messages in 14 discussions
137 messages in 22 discussions
424 messages in 61 discussions
635 messages in 73 discussions
149 messages in 26 discussions
1481 messages in 198 discussions
70 messages in 15 discussions
113 messages in 17 discussions
291 messages in 28 discussions
1116 messages in 728 discussions
8 messages in 3 discussions
51 messages in 18 discussions
President Donald Trump banned or restricted visas for travel to the United States from eight countries on Sunday, the next step in what began as his travel ban from six Muslim nations. The new presidential order keeps restrictions on five of those six countries — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen — lifts restrictions on visitors from the Sudan and adds new restrictions on visitors and immigrants from Chad, North Korea and Venezuela. In a proclamation issued Sunday night, Trump blocked the issuance of all visas from North Korea and Syria, while for Iran, nearly all visas were blocked except those for students and exchange visitors. Issuance of all immigrant visas and business and tourist visas was suspended from Chad, Libya and Yemen. The order also blocks visas for government officials on business or tourist travel from Venezuela. For Somalia, the order blocks visas for immigrants and provides that other travelers will be subject to extra scrutiny.
Yes , there is no reason to fear Muslims
President Trump extended his travel ban to individuals from Chad, North Korea, and Venezuela, which prompted the U.S. Supreme Court to delay a decision on his previous travel order. With some modifications from the High Court, the prior executive order against six other nations is already in effect. And according to legal experts, the new order has a better chance of standing up in court. The justices were preparing to hear arguments on Oct. 10, but they have removed the case from their calendar pending further consideration.
Not at all, just do not let Al Quaida, Al Shabab, ISIS, ISIL, Al Fatah and a few select nutcase sects and their aficionados in. Now, who is doing the sorting?
The body count from white Anglo-Saxon terrorists in the US is far higher than from people overseas...
I could give a long list but Las Vegas and Oklahoma City stand out.
So it would be OK to admit known terrorist organizations to send their members here, to add to all those nasty Anglos tearing up the world.
Bike (URALTOURIST1) said...So it would be OK to admit known terrorist organizations to send their members here
If that had been happening here, we'd have legitimate reason to worry. But the vetting the US does, compared with most nations, has been remarkably good. And if a ban or restriction by country worked, we'd at least have to get the right countries. The current ban is now "Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Chad, Venezuela and North Korea". 9-11, and almost all of the plots since 9-11 in the US either involved Saudi Arabia, which has never been under a ban, or Pakistan (same omission), or Egypt (same omission). Additionally, most of the few attacks we have had were people who would have been admitted under the "bans" (such as close family members of a US citizen or legal resident).
No one advocates admission of dangerous people of any religion (right now our biggest criminal danger is more from "Christians" who happen to be gang members or drug traffickers from other nations not in the travel ban).
Additionally, the terrorism we have seen has generally been from long time residents who somehow become radicalized after living here, not people who worked for terrorists when they arrived.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed one of two cases over President Trump's ban on visitors from mostly Muslim countries, suggesting it will step away from away from the controversy for now. The court got rid of a case that originated in Maryland and involves a ban that has now expired and been replaced by a new version. Officially, the justices told a lower court to dismiss the original challenge to the president's ban, CBS News' Jan Crawford reports. All nine justices agreed the case should be dismissed. But the justices took no action on a separate case from Hawaii. That dispute concerns both the travel ban and a separate ban on refugees, which does not expire until Oct. 24. Dismissing the cases would allow the court to avoid ruling on difficult legal issues, at least for a while. The dismissal also opens a path for the next round of litigation over the president's latest ban.
Lawyers representing Hawaii asked a judge Tuesday to stop the Trump administration from enforcing the latest version of its travel ban.
A federal judge in Hawaii has temporarily blocked the latest version of President Trump's travel ban. The 40-page opinion came down Tuesday -- hours before the ban was set to go into effect early Wednesday morning. Thecitizens of Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen -- and some Venezuelan government officials and their families. Unlike the first two ban attempts, which were also challenged in court, this ban had no expiration date.