Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

These 73 sitting Democrats voted to ban visas from some Muslim countries. That law still exists.
CR ^ | Jan 30 2017 | Daniel Horowitz

Posted on 02/02/2017 7:25:02 AM PST by Whenifhow

Trump’s executive order is so modest that the foundation of it is essentially existing law. That law was passed unanimously by both bodies of Congress in 2002. In fact, it garnered the support of 16 Democrat senators and 57 Democrat House members who are still serving in their respective bodies!

Following 9/11, Congress passed the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act, which addressed many of the insecurities in our visa tracking system. The bill passed the House and Senate unanimously. The bill was originally sponsored by a group of bipartisan senators, including Ted Kennedy and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. (F, 0%). Among other provisions, it restricted non-immigrant visas from countries designated as state sponsors of terror:

(Excerpt) Read more at conservativereview.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; Government; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 115th; bordersecurity; democrats; demtravelban; executiveorder; grandstanding; immigration; muslim; refugeepolicy; refugees; trump45; trump7countryban; visa
SEC. 306. RESTRICTION ON ISSUANCE OF VISAS TO NONIMMIGRANTS FROM COUNTRIES THAT ARE STATE SPONSORS OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM.

(a) IN GENERAL- No nonimmigrant visa under section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.1101(a)(15)) shall be issued to any alien from a country that is a state sponsor of international terrorism unless the Secretary of State determines, in consultation with the Attorney General and the heads of other appropriate United States agencies, that such alien does not pose a threat to the safety or national security of the United States. In making a determination under this subsection, the Secretary of State shall apply standards developed by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General and the heads of other appropriate United States agencies, that are applicable to the nationals of such states.

The directive to cut off non-immigrant visas from countries designated as state sponsors of terror is still current law on the books [8 U.S. Code § 1735]. Presidents Bush and Obama later used their discretion to waive the ban, but Trump is actually following the letter of the law — the very law sponsored and passed by Democrats — more closely than Obama did. Trump used his 212(f) authority to add immigrant visas, but that doesn’t take away the fact that every Democrat in the 2002 Senate supported the banning of non-immigrant visas.

Given that Trump has backed down on green card holders, his executive order on “Muslim countries” is essentially current law, albeit only guaranteed for 90 days!

At present, only three of the countries — Sudan, Syria, and Iran — are designated as state sponsors by the State Department. At the time Democrats agreed to the ban in 2002, the State Department also included Libya and Iraq in that list. Although Libya and Iraq were on the list due to the presence of Gadhafi and Saddam Hussein as sponsors of terror, there is actually more of a reason to cut off visas now. Both are completely failed states with no reliable data to vet travelers. Both are more saturated with Islamist groups now than they were in 2002. The same goes for Yemen and Somalia. Neither country is a state sponsor of terror because neither has a functioning governments. They are terrorist havens.

Thus, the letter of the law already applies to three of the countries, and the spirit of the law applies to all of them. Plus, the State Department could add any new country to the list, thereby making any future suspension of visas from those specific countries covered under §1735, in addition to the broad general power (INA 212(f)) to shut off any form of immigration. Given that Trump has backed down on green card holders, his executive order on “Muslim countries” is essentially current law, albeit only guaranteed for 90 days!

Sixteen sitting Democrats, including their Minority Leader, voted for the 2002 bill [several of them were in the House at the time]:

List of democrats

Cantwell, D-Wash. (F, 4%)

Cardin, D-Md. (F, 2%)

Carper, D-Del. (F, 10%)

Markey, D-Ore. (F, 17%)

Menendez, D-N.J. (F, 6%)

Murray, D-Wash. (F, 2%)

Nelson, D-Fla. (F, 4%)

Reed, D-R.I. (F, 4%)

Sanders, I-Vt. (F, 17%)

Schumer, D-N.Y. (F, 2%)

Stabenow, D-Mich. (F, 8%)

Wyden, D-Ore. (F, 6%)

Durbin, D-Ill. (F, 2%)

Feinstein, D-Calif. (F, 0%)

Leahy, D-Vt. (F, 6%)

Udall, D-N.M. (F, 4%)

More of article at link

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/01/these-73-sitting-democrats-voted-to-ban-visas-from-some-muslim-countries-that-law-still-exists

1 posted on 02/02/2017 7:25:02 AM PST by Whenifhow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow

.
Well, the Donkeys were “for” it before they were “against” it.

.
Flip / Flop do nothing politicians aided by the lap dog Control-LEFT media.


2 posted on 02/02/2017 7:28:22 AM PST by ptsal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow
lol

3 posted on 02/02/2017 7:31:30 AM PST by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow

That law was passed unanimously by both bodies of Congress in 2002. In fact, it garnered the support of 16 Democrat senators and 57 Democrat House members who are still serving in their respective bodies!

This may have something to do with our disillusionment with government.


4 posted on 02/02/2017 7:32:24 AM PST by gnickgnack2 (Another bad day for Trump, he only got seven major things accomplished)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow

Shouldn’t Gross Hypocrisy like this be a capital offense?

It is certainly a Capitol Offense.


5 posted on 02/02/2017 7:32:36 AM PST by Auntie Dem (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Terrorist lovers gotta go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow
I think the hysterical response to last weekend's EO was planned and canned during the transition period. The scripts were written, the signs were printed, the money to pay the protestors and their management was allocated.

They were just waiting for the trigger event; what that trigger event would be was (I would guess) decided on some conference call.

They wanted to go as soon as possible so as to interfere with DJT's cabinet formation process. They decided the EO On Immigration would do, so they pressed the button, and off they went.

6 posted on 02/02/2017 7:33:20 AM PST by Steely Tom (Liberals think in propaganda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow

They would vote for anything that bammy proposed. They would fight anything that Trump proposed.
Nothing but hypocrites.


7 posted on 02/02/2017 7:36:37 AM PST by I want the USA back (Media: willing and eager allies of the hate-America left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow

I’m sure CNN will be outing them all day long. Or not.


8 posted on 02/02/2017 7:37:56 AM PST by bgill (From the CDC site, "We don't know how people are infected with Ebola")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow

Sorry, Mary Jo Kopechne is unavailable for comment.................


9 posted on 02/02/2017 7:52:34 AM PST by Lockbox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow

They aren’t going to own up to those votes now. We The People have to keep making the point, just as you have done.


10 posted on 02/02/2017 7:55:50 AM PST by Wneighbor (A pregnant woman is responsible for TWO lives, not one. (It's a wonderful "deplorable" truth))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I want the USA back

Called out Silent Tom Carper on his stance for when the half breed was in the White House, but not when President Trump does the same thing. His office flunkie says Tom is opposed now because “it’s not the same ban”.

Carper’s Facebook page has his defense with this little sentence: “I reminded him (Senator Sessions) of Matthew 25 tells us of our moral obligation ‘to the least of these’ in our society”. Ha!, this miserable hypocrite emphatically promotes abortion.

BTW, I refuse to refer to any Senator by title. Respect is earned, not granted. If he has a problem with that, let’s talk it over. My choice of weapons.


11 posted on 02/02/2017 8:35:05 AM PST by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners. And to the NSA trolls, FU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow

Does not matter to the Progs. Facts are only of use to them until they no longer support the Party line, at which point facts will be trashed like yesterday’s news, right down the memory hole.


12 posted on 02/02/2017 9:10:50 AM PST by backwoods-engineer (Trump won; I celebrated; I'm good. Let's get on with the civil war now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow

btt


13 posted on 02/02/2017 10:57:31 AM PST by GailA (Ret. SCPO wife: suck it up buttercups it's President Donald Trump!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow
Schumer voted yes! That requires...


14 posted on 02/02/2017 11:00:10 AM PST by SparkyBass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson