Advertisements


Trump: Why allow immigrants from shithole countries ?

Trump: Why allow immigrants from shithole countries ?.....»»

Category: newsSource: philstar philstarJan 12th, 2018

Trump’s ‘shi**hole’ insult demands censure

  Martin Luther King Jr. Day in America is supposed to be a celebration of the civil rights giant. But as we approach the holiday, there is an undeniable truth. The American president is a racist, having branded himself a potty-mouth pol by use of the term "shithole" to describe people from poor countries, specifically immigrants from Africa, Haiti and El Salvador. Racist. Disgusting. And considering what the Philippine president has said about Obama, practically Dutertian. But if Trump's pussy grabbing rhetoric wasn't enough to sink his candidacy in 2016, why do you think Trump's latest racist insult will faze him? Still, the president has gone too far. His ra...Keep on reading: Trump’s ‘shi**hole’ insult demands censure.....»»

Category: newsSource:  inquirerRelated NewsJan 15th, 2018

Trump denies he used vulgarity to describe African countries

WASHINGTON — In bluntly vulgar language, President Donald Trump questioned Thursday why the US would accept more immigrants from Haiti and "shithole countrie.....»»

Category: newsSource:  philstarRelated NewsJan 12th, 2018

Trump uses slur to describe immigrants from Haiti, Africa

WASHINGTON DC, USA – President Donald Trump reportedly lashed out in a meeting on Thursday, January 11, with lawmakers about immigration reform, demanding to know why the US should accept citizens from what he called "shithole" countries. The comments, first reported by The Washington Post, sparked anger among Democrats and Republicans ........»»

Category: newsSource:  rapplerRelated NewsJan 12th, 2018

Trump: Why allow immigrants from shithole countries ?

Trump: Why allow immigrants from shithole countries ?.....»»

Category: newsSource:  philstarRelated NewsJan 12th, 2018

Trump asks why U.S. should take in immigrants from ‘shithole countries’ – sources

President Donald Trump on Thursday questioned why the United States would want to have immigrants from Haiti and African nations, referring to some as “shithole countries,” according to two sources familiar with the comments......»»

Category: newsSource:  interaksyonRelated NewsJan 12th, 2018

Trump defends vulgar remarks while partly denying them

WASHINGTON --- President Donald Trump offered a partial denial in public but privately defended his extraordinary remarks disparaging Haitians and African countries. Trump said he was only expressing what many people think but won't say about immigrants from economically depressed countries, according to a person who spoke to the president as criticism of his comments ricocheted around the globe. Trump spent Thursday evening calling friends and outside advisers to judge their reaction, said the confidant, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to disclose a private conversation. Trump wasn't apologetic about the inflammatory remarks and denied he was r...Keep on reading: Trump defends vulgar remarks while partly denying them.....»»

Category: newsSource:  inquirerRelated NewsJan 14th, 2018

African countries unite at UN against Trump slur

New York - All African countries at the United Nations unanimously demanded on Friday that US President Donald Trump retract and apologise for his reported denunciation of immigration from "shithole".....»»

Category: newsSource:  philippinetimesRelated NewsJan 13th, 2018

Who’d prefer their country to Trump’s US? Norwegians would

STAVANGER, Norway --- Norwegians generally live longer than Americans. There's a generous safety net of health care and pensions. And although it's pricey, the country last year was named the happiest on Earth. President Donald Trump says the United States should take in more Norwegians, but is it any wonder that more Americans are going the other way? The country of 5.2 million people that seldom makes global headlines awoke Friday to the news that Trump wanted to have more immigrants from Norway, rather than Haiti and countries in Africa that he disparaged with a vulgar term. The comments came after Trump met Wednesday with Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg in Washingt...Keep on reading: Who’d prefer their country to Trump’s US? Norwegians would.....»»

Category: newsSource:  inquirerRelated NewsJan 13th, 2018

Trump comments highlight racial impact of migration platform

DENVER --- For years, a movement to limit the number of migrants into the US and end a system that favors family members of legal residents has had to fend off criticism that it's as a poorly veiled attempt to produce a whiter America. Then its most prominent supporter told members of Congress in the Oval Office this week that the US needs fewer immigrants from Haiti and Africa and more from places like Norway. President Donald Trump's use of a vulgar term to describe African countries triggered widespread condemnation, and left the small cluster of immigration hard-line groups whose agenda Trump has embraced scrambling to distance themselves from the president. "They say it...Keep on reading: Trump comments highlight racial impact of migration platform.....»»

Category: newsSource:  inquirerRelated NewsJan 13th, 2018

Raptors president Ujiri among NBA figures to decry Trump shithole slur

LOS ANGELES, USA – The Toronto Raptors' Nigerian president Masai Ujiri was just one NBA figure with a strong response on Friday, January 12, to US President Donald Trump's reported denunciation of immigration from 'shithole countries." While Trump took to Twitter to deny using the specific term, Democratic Senator Dick Durbin ........»»

Category: newsSource:  rapplerRelated NewsJan 13th, 2018

Trump scrambles as ‘shithole’ slur fuels outrage

WASHINGTON, D.C.: US President Donald Trump sought Friday to quell a global firestorm over his reported denunciation of immigration from “shithole countries” — a slur slammed at home and abroad as racist. Trump tweeted a convoluted denial early Friday about the comments allegedly made on Thursday at a White House meeting with lawmakers on immigration… link: Trump scrambles as ‘shithole’ slur fuels outrage.....»»

Category: newsSource:  manilainformerRelated NewsJan 13th, 2018

Trump scrambles as ‘shithole’ slur fuels outrage

WASHINGTON, D.C.: US President Donald Trump sought Friday to quell a global firestorm over his reported denunciation of immigration from “shithole countries” — a slur slammed at home and abroad as racist. Trump tweeted a convoluted denial early Friday about the comments allegedly made on Thursday at a White House meeting with lawmakers on immigration [...] The post Trump scrambles as ‘shithole’ slur fuels outrage appeared first on The Manila Times Online......»»

Category: newsSource:  manilatimes_netRelated NewsJan 13th, 2018

African countries demand Trump apology

UNITED NATIONS -- A group of "extremely appalled" African countries demanded Friday that US President Donald Trump retract and apologize for his reported denunciation of immigration from "shithole" nations. After an emergency session to weigh Trump's remarks, the group of African ambassadors to the United Nations said it was "concerned at the continuing and growing trend from the US administration toward Africa and people of African descent to denigrate the continent and people of color." The group is "extremely appalled at, and strongly condemns the outrageous, racist and xenophobic remarks by the president of the United States of America as widely reported by the media," a st...Keep on reading: African countries demand Trump apology.....»»

Category: newsSource:  inquirerRelated NewsJan 13th, 2018

Trump denies ‘shithole countries’ remark as condemnation mounts

Facing strong condemnation at home and abroad, U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday denied using the word “shithole” to describe Haiti and African countries, but kept up criticism of a Senate immigration plan that he said would force the United States to admit people from countries that “are doing badly.”.....»»

Category: newsSource:  interaksyonRelated NewsJan 13th, 2018

Trump denies shithole countries remark

WASHINGTON, DC, USA – US President Donald Trump tweeted a denial on Friday, January 12, after he was quoted as describing African and other states as "shithole countries," amid an international furor over the remarks. Trump, who reportedly made the comment during a meeting with legislators Thursday on immigration reform, drew ........»»

Category: newsSource:  rapplerRelated NewsJan 12th, 2018

Africans outraged over racist Trump remarks

NAIROBI, Kenya – Africans reacted angrily on Friday, January 12, after Donald Trump reportedly referred to their nations as "shithole countries," with many lashing the US president for racism and ignorance. The 55-nation African Union condemned the remarks while the southern African state of Botswana hauled in the US ambassador to ........»»

Category: newsSource:  rapplerRelated NewsJan 12th, 2018

Trump: Why allow immigrants from ‘shithole countries’?

President Donald Trump questioned Thursday why the U.S. would accept more immigrants from Haiti and “shithole countries” in Africa rather than places like Norway, as he rejected a bipartisan immigration deal, according to people briefed on the extraordinary Oval Office conversation. #BeFullyInformed Trump: Why allow immigrants from ‘shithole countries’? Washington — In bluntly vulgar language,… link: Trump: Why allow immigrants from ‘shithole countries’?.....»»

Category: newsSource:  manilainformerRelated NewsJan 12th, 2018

Trump’s appeal of travel ban suspension pits executive against judiciary – CBC News

A federal appellate court heard arguments Tuesday for and against lifting a block on U.S. President Donald Trump's executive order, which has over the last two weeks given rise to mass confusion, legal maneuvres and plenty of human drama. An emergency three-judge panel with the San Francisco-based Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals convened the hour-long telephone hearing at 6 p.m. ET. The case pits the Department of Justice lawyers against lawyers representing Washington state and Minnesota. The states were the plaintiffs in this case, and argued in favour of continuing to suspend Trump's ban. Justice department lawyer August Flentje contended that Trump's executive order, which closes U.S. borders for 90 days to citizens from seven predominantly Muslim nations (Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen) should be reinstated as a matter of national security. Both sides filed their legal briefs ahead of the hearing and had up to 30 minutes to make their case via phone. A quick ruling is expected. These oral arguments were not meant to be about the overarching merits of the travel ban itself. Rather, this hearing focused on the narrow question of whether to uphold a temporary restraining order imposed on Friday by Seattle U.S. District Judge James Robart. The federal judge's injunction, which applied nationwide, effectively put Trump's immigration executive order on ice. Temporary restraining orders are granted as a form of interim relief. The Ninth Circuit will be ruling on the sole question of whether the restraining order was justified until the case is heard on its larger merits. Robart wrote in his decision that the plaintiff states were likely &'8220;to suffer irreparable harm&'8221; if the enforcement of Trump's order was not halted. While the original court challenge of the travel ban was a battle of states vs. the federal government, the case before the Ninth Circuit is being framed as a showdown between two separate but equal branches of the government: the judiciary and the executive branch (president). The Department of Justice argued that the president's executive power to manage immigration in the U.S. is being unlawfully undermined by the judiciary. Trump's Twitter feed was revealing about the way he views the judicial branch. In one missive, he referred to Robart as a &'8220;so-called judge.&'8221; In another, he wrote: &'8220;Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system.&'8221; Restraining orders are not typically appealable, notes Yvonne Tew, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University. &'8220;But the government is bringing this before the Ninth Circuit, arguing that because of the nature of the case, they should allow it to be appealed before the appeals court.&'8221; In its 15-page legal brief filed on Monday, the justice department put the crux of its argument in its top line: &'8220;The executive order is a lawful exercise of the president's authority over the entry of aliens into the United States and the admission of refugees.&'8221; The line cites the Immigration Act of 1952 to argue the order is lawful. The Act includes a provision giving the president the authority to &'8220;suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants&'8221; if their arrival in the U.S. is deemed &'8220;detrimental&'8221; to U.S. interests. Justice department lawyers also said the courts have taken an &'8220;extraordinary step of second-guessing&'8221; the president's judgment on a matter of national security. While the states asserted that constitutional rights would be violated by the ban, the Justice Department said that the Supreme Court has already ruled that &'8220;an alien seeking initial admission to the United States requests a privilege and has no constitutional rights regarding his application.&'8221; In other words, the department said, foreign nationals aren't protected by U.S. constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. Arguments by lawyers opposing the ban The suit brought by the attorneys general of Washington state and Minnesota warned that lifting the suspension of Trump's immigration executive order would &'8220;unleash chaos again&'8221; by breaking up families, causing disarray in immigration procedures and hurting economies. &'8220;The order also caused immediate harm to Washington's public universities, which are state agencies,&'8221; the 32-page brief said. &'8220;Hundreds of their faculty, staff, and students are from the affected countries.&'8221; Minnesota soon joined the Washington complaint, alleging similar harms. Although the president does have wide discretion on immigration, as outlined in the 1952 Immigration Act, the plaintiffs counter that the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act signed by president Lyndon B. Johnson actually supersedes the older law. That's because under the 1965 Immigration Act, Congress decided to give each country an equal shot at immigration quotas, thereby &'8220;putting in a ban on discriminating based on national origin,&'8221; says David Bier, an immigration policy analyst with the Cato Institute. The 1965 amendment states: &'8220;No person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.&'8221; Citing the 1965 legislation, Washington State solicitor General Noah Purcell told the judges Tuesday &'8220;that is a claim that we feel very likely to succeed on&'8221; and would allow the court to &'8220;avoid&'8221; some constitutional issues. Included with the states' filings asking the court to keep blocking Trump's travel ban were amicus (friend of the court) supporting documents. These briefs included statements from: 16 attorneys general; 97 tech companies including Apple, Google and Microsoft; as well as a brief [&'].....»»

Category: newsSource:  mindanaoexaminerRelated NewsFeb 8th, 2017

US judge stops Trump travel ban

SEATTLE— A US judge on Friday imposed a nationwide hold on President Donald Trump’s ban on travelers and immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim countries.....»»

Category: newsSource:  philstarRelated NewsFeb 4th, 2017

Trump fires acting AG after she declines to defend travel ban – CNN News

President Donald Trump fired acting Attorney General Sally Yates Monday night for &'8220;refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States,&'8221; the White House said. &'8220;(Yates) has betrayed the Department of Justice,&'8221; the White House statement said. Dana Boente, US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, the White House said, and was sworn in at 9 p.m. ET, per an administration official. A few hours later, Boente issued a statement rescinding Yates' order, instructing DOJ lawyers to &'8220;defend the lawful orders of our President.&'8221; Trump didn't call Yates to dismiss her, she was informed by hand-delivered letter, according to a different administration official. The dramatic move came soon after CNN reported Yates told Justice Department lawyers not to make legal arguments defending Trump's executive order on immigration and refugees. The move set up a clash between the White House and Yates, who was appointed by President Barack Obama and was set to serve until Sen. Jeff Sessions, Trump's nominee for attorney general, if confirmed. &'8220;My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts,&'8221; she said in a letter. &'8220;In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution's solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right.&'8221; Trump's executive order, signed Friday, bars citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States for the next 90 days, suspends the admission of all refugees for 120 days and indefinitely suspends the Syrian refugee program. Yates' decision came amid a flood of protests against the executive order nationwide and after four federal judges ruled against Trump's order, staying its impact on people who were detained at US airports over the weekend. Trump tweeted his response shortly after the news broke, saying Democrats have stymied Sessions' confirmation, enabling Yates. &'8220;The Democrats are delaying my cabinet picks for purely political reasons. They have nothing going but to obstruct. Now have an Obama A.G.,&'8221; he said. &'8220;At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful,&'8221; Yates wrote. Yates' decision was always likely to be extremely short-lived as Sessions is scheduled for a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. White House policy director Stephen Miller, who helped craft the executive order, called Yates' decision &'8220;a further demonstration of how politicized our legal system has become.&'8221; &'8220;It's sad that our politics have become so politicized, that you have people refusing to enforce our laws,&'8221; Miller said Monday night on MSNBC. Miller also defended the executive order's legality, insisting that the Immigration and Nationality Act gives the President &'8220;the ability to exclude any class of would-be visitors or immigrants to our country based on our national security interests.&'8221; But the decision didn't face the same criticism from Rep. Pete Sessions, a top House Republican, who said Yates' decision was likely similar &'8220;to an evaluation that we made.&'8221; &'8220;And that was it did not appear to be specific in nature,&'8221; Sessions said referring to the executive order. &'8220;So it may be a matter of clarity it may be a matter of illegality to him, it may be a matter of several things. It did not look as complete and succinct as what I think I would've wanted.&'8221; Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, praised Yates for standing up &'8220;on principle.&'8221; &'8220;In all my years as a member of Congress, which now is 21, I've met so many very principled people who truly believe in the Constitution and doing what is right,&'8221; Cumming said. &'8220;There comes a time when people, no matter who may be their boss, they stand upon their principles, so at the end of the day they can look them selves in the mirror and say 'I synchronized my conduct with my conscience.' And Yates is such a person.&'8221; Currently, there are cases filed in at least five states including Virginia, New York, Massachusetts, Washington and California that are challenging Trump's order. The decision effectively grounds the executive order for the next few days until Sessions is sworn in. &'8220;This will be moot. Then we will very much see the Trump Justice Department led by Jeff Sessions defend this executive order pretty vigorously. And then it will be up to the courts,&'8221; said Steve Vladeck, a CNN contributor and law professor at the University of Texas School of Law. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told CNN's Erin Burnett Monday the Justice Department decision reflects poorly on the Trump administration. &'8220;When you do something as important as this, it can't be a Twitter-type of activity,&'8221; Schumer said. &'8220;This has to be thoroughly vetted &' and it's a very bad omen for this presidency.&'8221; Activists who have led the fight against Trump's immigration ban lauded Yates' action Monday night. &'8220;We took to the court room, people took to the streets and now principled federal officials are drawing a hardline on this shameful and unconstitutional act by President Trump. This is what we rely on the Department of Justice for, to uphold the rule of law no matter how the political wind is blowing,&'8221; said Karen Tumlin, [&'].....»»

Category: newsSource:  mindanaoexaminerRelated NewsJan 31st, 2017