Marine Arena


It is currently 23 Oct 2017, 07:52

All times are UTC




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 79 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 5 68 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 06 Feb 2017, 07:24 
Offline
Publisher
Publisher
User avatar

Joined: 03 Jan 2017, 15:41
Posts: 427
You have no idea what you linked, didn't you? Ragey. So I call bullshit.

USCIS's plaint text interpretation of the that order is here: https://www.uscis.gov/e-verify/federal- ... nd-answers

It's short so I will quote:
Executive Order 12989, as amended by Executive Orders 13286 and 13465, directs all executive departments and agencies to require contractors with qualifying federal contracts to electronically verify employment authorization of: (1) all employees hired during the contract term; and (2) all employees performing work in the United States on the contract. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) designated E-Verify as the electronic employment eligibility verification system that all federal contractors must use to comply with these Executive orders.On November 14, 2008, the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council published a final rule in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (referred to as the “Federal Contractor Rule”) to reflect these requirements. (source)
I call Bullshit because 12989 was the genesis of contractual employment verification. Bush later amended and now the Federal agencies use E-Verify instead of the old hard copy method. Anyone working with State or DoD knew this Procurement Rule. The documents even get plastered on ALL defense contractors' facilities, the way Labor's Rights and Equal Opportunity Employment documents are.

This EO has nothing to do with the Haitian in its specificity. It is applicable to ALL illegal immigrants. So no, whatever you thought Bill Clinton signed in 1996 has no semblance to DJT's Muslim ban.

I see what you there. You threw up some links to Wikipedia, links to some random EO of the same circa, and they pretended they made sense.

But nice Bullshit though. It's almost as amusing as "Alternative Facts."


Top
   
PostPosted: 06 Feb 2017, 07:40 
Offline
Publisher
Publisher
User avatar

Joined: 03 Jan 2017, 15:41
Posts: 427
Oh. I know why you linked IIRIRRA. It got mentioned in the first paragraph of DJT's Muslim ban EO.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) (INA), the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (Public Law 109 367) (Secure Fence Act), and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 104 208 Div. C) (IIRIRA), and in order to ensure the safety and territorial integrity of the United States as well as to ensure that the Nation's immigration laws are faithfully executed, I hereby order as follows:
You thought because DJT cited that law in the Muslim ban, it must be "similar" to whatever you thought Bill Clinton signed. And then you did a quick search in the Fed Register and found 12989, and thought to self, FOUND 'EM!!

Damn, I thought I would get a history lesson on Clinton's Haitian policies and how "similar" it was to DJT's Muslim ban. But all I got is a retarded retort peppered with irrelevant links as facts.


Top
   
PostPosted: 06 Feb 2017, 17:53 
Offline
Newcomer
Newcomer
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jan 2017, 08:10
Posts: 69
Eury, Clinton's EO affected all immigrants and refugees from before 1996, so yes...it affected haiti. :lol:

I'm really not even sure what you're arguing here anymore, you wanted to know what Clinton's EO did, you couldn't even tell the difference between his EO and a congressional act, you based an argument on a google search, and didn't bother to look into what his order actually did. In fact you still don't know. You do realize my wiki references are just a tool to show u what I'm talking about, right?

We have nothing more to say, if you can't argue the facts and assume with wild accusations and claims, you're just not ready for this conversation.


Top
   
PostPosted: 06 Feb 2017, 18:57 
Offline
Publisher
Publisher
User avatar

Joined: 03 Jan 2017, 15:41
Posts: 427
First you wrote this:
If I recall, there was a similar ban imposed by Clinton that was much more severe sometime in the mid 90s.
We finally got you to prove your statement and you cited 12989 as reason. Then I did a reading and pointed to USCIS's site showing how it was not what you claimed it to be: a "similar ban" to Trump's EO.

Then you wrote this:
Eury, Clinton's EO affected all immigrants and refugees from before 1996, so yes...it affected haiti
Here, I call Bullshit once again because Once you're trolling yet again. Clinton's EO 12989 addressed employment standards to private contractors with work in the Federal agencies. Clinton's EO 12989 forbids hiring of illegal immigrants, whereas Trump's EO is a specific ban on Muslim coming into the country /w or w/o prior visa awards.

There's nothing "similar" about the two unless and after the last example, you're witless to even draw the connection between the two.


Top
   
PostPosted: 06 Feb 2017, 18:58 
Offline
Newcomer
Newcomer
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jan 2017, 08:10
Posts: 69
euryleia wrote: First this:
If I recall, there was a similar ban imposed by Clinton that was much more severe sometime in the mid 90s.
Now this:
Eury, Clinton's EO affected all immigrants and refugees from before 1996, so yes...it affected haiti
I call Bullshit once again because Once you're trolling yet again. Clinton's EO 12989 addressed employment standards to private contractors with work in the Federal agencies. Clinton's EO 12989 forbids hiring of illegal immigrants, whereas Trump's EO is a specific ban on Muslim coming into the country /w or w/o prior visa awards.

There's nothing "similar" about the two unless and after the last example, you're witless to even draw the connection between the two.
[+] Click to see more
“All Americans, not only in the states most heavily affected, but in every place in this country are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. That’s why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens. In the budget I will present to you, we will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes, to better identify illegal aliens in the work-face, as recommended by the commission headed by former congresswoman, Barbara Jordan. We are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.”
Find the connection Eury, find it.


Top
   
PostPosted: 06 Feb 2017, 19:07 
Offline
Publisher
Publisher
User avatar

Joined: 03 Jan 2017, 15:41
Posts: 427
That's Clinton's SOTU, which once again shows the limit to your rational thinking. It's worth repeating this so we can remind ourselves the troll that you are.

First you wrote this:
If I recall, there was a similar ban imposed by Clinton that was much more severe sometime in the mid 90s.
We finally got you to prove your statement and you cited 12989 as reason. Then I did a reading and pointed to USCIS's site showing how it was not what you claimed it to be: a "similar ban" to Trump's EO.

Then you wrote this:
Eury, Clinton's EO affected all immigrants and refugees from before 1996, so yes...it affected haiti
The SOTU you attached is about jobs going to illegal immigrants, which EO 12989 addressed. Trump's EO specifically stated it's about terrorists from 7 Muslim-dominated countries. The latter doesn't even affect Haiti, but that's an easy look. Nothing here is "similar" unless you are reading a conspiracy theory on how Muslim immigrants are now the new Mexicans coming to take your jobs.


Top
   
PostPosted: 06 Feb 2017, 19:37 
Offline
Newcomer
Newcomer
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jan 2017, 08:10
Posts: 69
euryleia wrote: That's Clinton's SOTU, which once again shows the limit to your rational thinking. It's worth repeating this so we can remind ourselves the troll that you are.

First you wrote this:
If I recall, there was a similar ban imposed by Clinton that was much more severe sometime in the mid 90s.
We finally got you to prove your statement and you cited 12989 as reason. Then I did a reading and pointed to USCIS's site showing how it was not what you claimed it to be: a "similar ban" to Trump's EO.

Then you wrote this:
Eury, Clinton's EO affected all immigrants and refugees from before 1996, so yes...it affected haiti
The SOTU you attached is about jobs going to illegal immigrants, which EO 12989 addressed. Trump's EO specifically stated it's about terrorists from 7 Muslim-dominated countries. The latter doesn't even affect Haiti, but that's an easy look. Nothing here is "similar" unless you are reading a conspiracy theory on how Muslim immigrants are now the new Mexicans coming to take your jobs.


*********

My god you just can't help yourself can you! You can't argue facts, you can only do personal attacks!

Sigh, I hate to spell this out for you, instead of absorbing it you'll just dance around the issue but here goes
[+] Click to see more
Hey Eury, it's Guantanamo
I was really hoping you'd do your homework and look up some historical information, but that's what happened. It's actually not that similar...it's MUCH WORSE as I said. Gitmo was used to detain all haiti refugees in almost permanent detention during the 90's, and the few they did let in took years because of the massive number of HIV outbreaks that occurred there. The order moved huge spending to keep them there, and it was a direct ban against an entire group of people, just like we are having now, except now it's under the threat of terrorism. Those that were not HIV positive were eventually allowed into the country, and Americans were not welcoming of it, and treated them the same way "Muslims" are treated today. The orders made it so that anyone caught would be sent to that camp for no fewer than 3 years before anything would be done for them, much more severe than anything we are seeing with Trump today, and wouldn't you know it, a judge also stepped in to fight against the ban back then too.

So yes Eury, what Clinton did greatly affected Haiti, it's painful knowing you couldn't do more than a few google searches on the topic to figure it out, but unless you can change history, you should have nothing to say about it.


Top
   
PostPosted: 06 Feb 2017, 19:49 
Offline
Publisher
Publisher
User avatar

Joined: 03 Jan 2017, 15:41
Posts: 427
Let's track this thread:

You wrote:
If I recall, there was a similar ban imposed by Clinton that was much more severe sometime in the mid 90s.
You then cited the EO 12989 as somehow the connective tissue of your argument. Then you insisted it's the same as Trump's EO because it affects all "immigrants" despite the concrete proof 12989 is about the hiring of illegal immigrants from private contractors in their bids to do work for the Federal agencies. Faced with that dead end, you now cite Gitmo as the reason for EO 12989 being as same as Trump's Muslim ban EO but as far as facts shown, nothing in the EO said Gitmo is involved. Then you said it's about HIV and scare-quoted Muslims.

This rabbit hole gets deeper and more retarded each post you added. We're getting trolled by our caster. It won't be long before we get to the CIA and HIV.


Top
   
PostPosted: 06 Feb 2017, 19:55 
Offline
Newcomer
Newcomer
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jan 2017, 08:10
Posts: 69
LOL my gosh, you still wont do your research, instead resorting to talking about rabbit holes, whatever that means.

Good luck to you Eury, if you can't understand the similarities, then you're just too blind to truth.


Top
   
PostPosted: 06 Feb 2017, 20:05 
Offline
Publisher
Publisher
User avatar

Joined: 03 Jan 2017, 15:41
Posts: 427
I didn't have to do much. I just took the linchpin of your argument, Clinton's EO 12989 and ran that into the USCIS database and found how it is nothing you claimed to it to be. You disputed none of that but did rush to the next conspiracy theory because I learned next that it's ALL about Gitmo and HIV. You asked me to replace Muslim with Haitian, Bill Clinton with DJT, Gitmo with the airports, and HIV with ....? And that's what I got: One self-serving portion of retardedness behind two layers worth of smoke and mirrors.

You have no argument to back up the "similar ban" comparison. You heightened whatever inside your head into the next level of Infowars, no wonder you're confused.

Plus, I don't know if you noticed but what you wrote is kinda cuckoo.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 79 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 5 68 Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
Theme Created by HOLLYSMOKE
Theme updated to phpBB 3.1.3 by KamijouTouma