Browse By

Trump: I’m Locking Up 5 Year Olds Because I Don’t Understand Visas

Bill and Ted, eat your heart out: we have a President who sets foreign policy with reference to “dudes.” On Twitter yesterday:

Donald Trump: Setting Visa Policy With No Idea How It Works

You are probably aware that a 5-year-old boy was locked up, detained by Trump government agents as the result of Donald Trump’s ideas about “dudes” somehow rushing the border within days of being informed of an imminent border closure. Trump’s willingness to strand 5-year-old children in detention for the sake of a surprise idea based on “bad dudes” storming over the border reveals not only a startling lack of empathy, but also an amazing lack of basic knowledge regarding the length of time required for foreigners to obtain permission to visit the United States on even the simplest of tourist, non-immigrant visas. The best possible wait time for an appointment to submit a visa application is one day, and at many U.S. consulates and embassies is significantly longer. After that, an additional processing day is involved before a visa is issued.

All this means that even if our U.S. embassy and consulate staff were approving visas for terrorists willy-nilly, which they aren’t, the “bad dudes” still wouldn’t be able to get permission to enter the country for two days. If Donald Trump had a shred of compassion or human kindness for the actual immigrants who have spent years being vetted before gaining permission to travel to the United States, he could have allowed two days’ notice for families, students, children, scientists, doctors, nurses, hospital workers and legitimately suffering, vetted refugees to enter the country rather than be stranded, alone, detained and deported. Like that innocent five-year-old boy.

Enough with the “dudes” talk, Donald Trump. There is no moral or even technical excuse to justify your choice. No excuse at all.

33 thoughts on “Trump: I’m Locking Up 5 Year Olds Because I Don’t Understand Visas”

  1. Bruce says:

    Ha ha ha what a bunch liberal weenie heads. You guys are just to much. To you weren’t this hard on Obummer

    1. Jim Cook says:

      Look up our criticisms of Obama on this very page. I was on Pennsylvania Avenue with a protest banner for Obama’s 2009 inauguration, you ignorant git.

    2. Horatio says:

      I’m sorry, Bruce, but do you actually have something of substance to say?

      So far, you’ve only

      1) Called us “weenie heads”
      2) Misspelled “too”
      3) Called Barack Obama “Obummer”

      This is the kind of tactic used by elementary school students. You sound like someone who is trying to distract from the fact that you can’t justify the terrible things that Donald Trump is doing.

      If you want to make a comment, try citing some facts. Try making a rational argument.

      Simply calling names doesn’t cut it, Bruce.

  2. Mona says:

    Oh good grief. Obama’s TSA searched a 3yr old girl in a wheel chair.

    1. J Clifford says:

      Oh good grief. The proper response, given the extremely low risk of actual terrorist attack, is to loosen excessive security, not to make it worse as Donald Trump is doing.

  3. R Jabs says:

    Lets take a look at this article…

    “a 5-year-old boy was locked up, detained by Trump government agents”

    1: First off, a 5 year old was not “locked up”. He was placed in a room at the airport while everything was sorted out. Trying to make it seem like he was put in Jail? This is what you call a play on words. Is the statement a complete lie? No, but it’s certainly misleading.

    2: Was the mother traveling with the boy or did he travel alone and she was at the airport to pick him up? Believe it or not, this does effect the situation.

    3: I just feel that everyone is quick to jump to conclusions and make statements when all the facts are not known. Everyone all of a sudden has a law degree and are lawyers. What is the source for the article, where are ALL the facts?

    – I get it. I have a 1 year old and a 5 year old and I understand what that would do to my child. I have compassion for the situation but I dont know ALL the facts and neither do you. So many people comment about the executive order that is causing all of this and when you ask them where they got their facts from, NONE of them actually say they read the order for themselves. I am not backing the order because I don’t like the way it was rolled out. I feel that had President Trump consulted about the cause and effects with his cabinet, it would have been written better. I agree with the goal of making sure we have proper vetting systems in place before letting refugees be granted visa and travel to the US but I dont like that people already having been approved and visa holders are getting hung up.

    I urge everyone to go to the link provided and read the order for yourself so when you speak for it or against it, you have all the real facts for yourself. Something that this article is missing.

    1. J Clifford says:

      The REAL facts? From Donald Trump’s White House? The White House that tells us that we should believe “alternative facts”? The White House that told us that hundreds, rather than the actual 90,000, people were affected by the travel ban targeting Muslims?

      That’s where you lose your credibility, R Jabs, suggesting that we can trust what comes out of this White House.

      Look to independent, trustworthy sources instead.

      FACT: The boy was kept behind a locked door, and not allowed to leave. That’s what locked up means. The 5 year-old boy was detained for hours, kept away from his mother, as documented by a local news team in Washington DC:

      FACT: The 5 year-old boy is just one example of an immense number of people who were locked up under Trump’s poorly planned, ill-conceived travel ban. Consider, for example, a 77 year-old grandmother who was traveling to the USA from Iraq in order to see her 9 year-old grandson.

      1. R Jabs says:

        The real facts are in the document itself. I didnt say to get the facts from the white house, or press secretary, or blah blah blah. I said to go actually read the document for yourself. Is that a hard concept for you to understand? That is where you lose your credability. You dont know how to actually read the signed document for yourself and instead on “credable” news sources. I dont look for “indepent” sources to tell me what something says… I read the actual document myself and form my own opinion instead of pushing some other “indepent” sources opinion.

        Like I said before, I sympothize for the child nor do I support what happened to the kid as I have my own children that age. I think its unfortunate the way some people have been effected by this executive order. maybe if you would recall, I said something like this… ” agree with the goal of making sure we have proper vetting systems in place before letting refugees be granted visa and travel to the US but I dont like that people already having been approved and visa holders are getting hung up.”

        FACT: The mother did not fly with the child THEREFORE she could not get through TSA checkpoint because she didnt have a ticket. The child flew with a “family member” whom we have heard nothing else about.
        – What happened to that family member? Do you have that “fact”?

        FACT: The executive order makes no mention of muslim or any other religion.

        FACT: over 40+ other majority muslim countries are not banned which means its not a “muslim ban” Hard concept to understand?

        FACT: Christians and other faiths face the same scrutany that everyone else does if they come from those 7 countries.

        Look, I don’t approve of the executive order as a whole but I agree that we can’t keep taking refugees without a better vetting process. You can say that there is a highly unlikely chance that anyone from these countries could attack the us but you would be very wrong. You primary sources of information (prob CNN or Huff Post) doesnt tell you about the hundreds of personnel detained, charged and convicted in the united states on terrorism related charges.

        Here is a challenge to you… instead of having a war of words and debating theory on this site, read the actual executive order yourself and THEN if you want to debate about it, state the actual paragraph or content from the order itself and we can debate. Until then, there is no more need to comment with you regarding this order.

        1. R Jabs says:

          *** independent NOT indepent ***

          typing too fast and not reading over it before posting

        2. Peregrin Wood says:

          R Jabs, the executive order cannot be understood in isolation from the context in which it is applied. Just going to the White House document is insufficient.

          It’s just dishonest to say that the “executive order makes no mention of muslim or any other religion”. It does, without using the words “Islam” or “Muslim”. The executive order specifically mentions religion, saying that members of majority religions from the countries named, which are all majority Muslim, will be deprived of the right to travel into the United States WITHOUT REGARD for the extent of vetting that these people have already received. It says Muslim right there, without saying “Muslim”.

          You want a credible source? How about a member of the U.S. House of Representatives who went to help constituents that were suffering under the travel ban, which in fact was unconstitutionally designed to discriminate against Muslims and to provide special favors to Christians, as Donald Trump himself has admitted?

          U.S. Representative Jayapal, speaking yesterday on the floor of the House: “For hours at Sea-Tac International Airport on Saturday, I worked with colleagues from the Port of Seattle, the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, the ACLU, and our Governor to get people who were being held to be released because of President Trump’s Muslim ban. In the utter chaos, I found a gentleman who had come from Somalia to be reunited with his wife. He had all of his legal papers; but, instead, he was blindly turned away without any due process. We were able to get two other individuals released–one from Yemen and one from Sudan–after a brutal and determined effort to literally stop the plane that they had been boarded onto in order for them to be deported. This wasn’t just in Seattle, Madam Speaker. This happened at airports across the Nation. Our office has been contacted by dozens of people who are absolutely terrified. These are students, legal permanent residents, and businesspeople who do not know anymore what their place in this country is. Simply put, this is un-American and unconstitutional.”

          1. R Jabs says:

            You stated “The executive order specifically mentions religion, saying that members of majority religions from the countries named” This is FALSE.

            The word “religion” was used only once. Section 1 Paragraph 4. It states “the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.”

            Do you have problem with that statement?

            The rest of your comment is inline with my beliefs as I stated in my previous comments. I dont agree with people getting hung up or deported when they already have visas or have been approved entry into the United States. However, as I also stated before, I DO agree that we need to stop accepting refugees from countries where we can not vet them properly especially from countries that are known to have ISIS/ISIL and al-qaeda training facilities.

            In closing, as we talk about “rights” and the consititution, remember who has them and who is protected by them. If you are legally a citizen of the United States or granted stay by the United States then you rights under the constitution. The examples you gave, being that they had all the proper documentation, do have rights. But alot of people seem to thing that our rights protect everyone in the world and that just simply isnt the case. Our constitution does not extend to other nations and “rights” are only protected by the constitution.

          2. J Clifford says:

            Have you read it R Jabs?

            “The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.”

            Your assertion about who is covered by the Constitution is not in agreement with the legal precedent, which holds that all people who are under the power of the U.S. government, whether inside or outside the USA, are protected by the Constitution. Furthermore, we ALL suffer from a violation of First Amendment rights when we have a government that officially favors one religion over others, or seeks to punish members of a certain religion, as this executive order clearly does.

  4. R Jabs says:

    J Clifford, I just read it again and see the portion in which you referenced. You make a good point. But with that I must ask…

    1. The majority of terror attacks accross the world over the LAST 10 YEARS have occured in the name of what?
    My Answer: Islam. Though these attacks falsly use Islam Faith to conduct attacks, they still tarnish Islam. Also, yes I am aware of all the various other groups that have conducted terror attacks in the united states but i emphasized the last 10 years as in “current”.

    2. What was the ethnic background of the terrorist that conducted those attacks?
    My Answer: Middle Eastern Decent

    3. What groups have claimed a current war against the united states and other western nations?
    My Answer: ISIS/ISIL, Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, and several others. All of them are Muslim.

    4. What groups promised to exploit our refugee programs for the sake of conducting terror attacks in the United States and what would your solution be to fix that problem?

    5. Can you accept the reality that radical islamic ideology is the biggest threat that the western nations face regarding terrorism and if you do accept that, how would you counter it?

    The way I look at this is how do we protect the nation from people killing in the name of a religion (Falsely) if we can not identify those people by what they are killing in the name of because it might offend someone?

    Profiling is REQUIRED for targeting criminals. Its a simple fact. Ill give you an example… if unidentified members of the KKK made a credible threat to blow up your house, wouldnt you begin to potentially profile people you dont know on your property. You prob wont be nervous if the individual is black but you might being to watch the white biker looking guy that keeps looking at your property and eyeing you house. Well if you did that, you just racially profiled that guy but I would agree that you did the right thing and if you hadnt of done that, you might have been dead. Well guess what? ISIS, ISIL, Al-Qaeda and other Radical Islamic extremist have made that threat. What are you going to do?

    1. R Jabs says:

      Why does the US prioritize refugees by religion from those countries? GENOCIDE

      The Obama administration decleared the acts of ISIS in the middle east an act of genocide agains “christians, yazidis and other minorities”.

      Genocide! it would be like saying that us US was banning christians because they were only allowing refuge to the jews in WW2.

      1. J Clifford says:

        Whoah. Bad historical analogy, Jabs. The majority of people fleeing persecution and war in Iraq and Syria are Muslims.

        Your ideology is leaking out pretty badly here.

    2. J Clifford says:

      Ok, Jabs. Now we see that what you’re really upset at is Islam, for religious reasons. That’s the main problem with Donald Trump’s approach. He gets distracted by identity politics, and doesn’t deal with actual problematic behavior. That’s why he didn’t target the countries that have historically been a problem with terrorist attacks in the United States. Trump is trying to score domestic political points with his right wing Christian base, which is why he went to the Christian Broadcasting Network to promote the executive order, and promised to give special privileges to Christians over everyone else while there.

      Once people give themselves over to this ideology-first perspective of Trumpism, they quickly veer away from a reasonable approach to what is on the national scale a relatively small problem, distorting almost every aspect of federal policy through the terrorism-is-everywhere-Islam-is-out-to-get-us belief.

      Here’s a mindblower for you, Jabs: The only terrorist attack we know of in North America this year has been against a Muslim target by a right wing pro-Trump Christian.

      1. R Jabs says:

        J Clifford,

        You didnt answer any of the questions I asked.

        I do not have a problem with Islam. I feel the Islam religion has been hijacked and given a bad reputation by a powerful group of thugs that falsly use Islam to achieve their greed agenda. My problem isnt islam, my problem is salafism.

        You mention trumpism as if trump solely created the list of the top 7 most dangerous countries and exclude that Obama had any part of it.

        Bottom line is that those 7 countries have a heavy ISIS presence, following or recruiting. We now have better systems in place with Saudi Arabia not requiring them to be part of the order. Why isnt Afghanistan on the list? Well I can tell you that. U.S. presence in Afghanistan has limited ISIS from being able to get a strong foothold and following there. Would you like me to continue?

        I would still like for you to asnwer the questions I asked in my previous comment because I fell you might be in denial and your judgment may be clouded by left wing propaganda.

        1. R Jabs says:

          By the way, the guy that killed 6 innocent people (muslims) in Canada is a real piece of crap murderer. He committed an act of terrorism for sure. Just want to make sure my beliefs on that are set straight.

        2. J Clifford says:

          I don’t answer your questions because they’re rhetorical, Jabs, and all based upon the presumption that terrorism that comes from Muslims is a great big problem for the United States. It isn’t. To say that it is just ignores statistics. Cows kill more people in America than terrorists do, Jabs. Cows.

          So, why isn’t Trump banning beef and dairy?

          The number of refugees from what you call the “top 7 most dangerous countries” that have engaged in acts of terrorism in the United States: ZERO






          1. R Jabs says:

            J Clifford,

            Come on man, did you get that from a chik-fil-a cup?

            More people die from rolling off the bed. More people die in car accidents. More people die from choking. More people die from heat exhaustion. we can keep going on and on. The difference is that these are all acceptable risks that people take for the sake of living. You as a person can decide what risk you are willing to take when it comes to all that. Just because people in the united states die alot more of things other than terrorism doesnt mean we shouldnt continue to try and prevent it like we try and prevent desease and many other harmful things.

            In 2015, there were over 11,000 terror attacks throughout the world resulting in almost 30,000 deaths and many more injuries. Why did the united states only see a couple of them? Because the systems and processes that we put in place to try and prevent them. If you are not comfortable with the systems and processes put in place to try and keep you safe, you can go visit some of those places for a while and then you will see just how our system keeps you safe. I have spent 6 years of my life in the middle east. I have seen what real oppression looks like. I have seen what no security looks like? when I got off the plane back in the united states, I literally kissed the ground and thanked my lucky stars for what we have here.

            In 2015, 71 personnel were areested in the united states for attempting to commit acts of terrorism in the name of jihad. Over 900 personnel were still being actively investigated. The threat is there and we shouldn’t standby and do nothing about it.

          2. J Clifford says:

            So, you’re saying that because four hundred thousandths of one percent of the world population dies because of terrorism outside the United States, and because a portion of that is done by Muslims, what we need to do is restrict Muslim refugees who aren’t suspected of terrorism from entering the United States.

            That’s like saying that because there have been a few shoplifters caught in a Wal-Mart on the other side of town, we can’t allow children to come into our homes for birthday parties, because they might steal something.

            Logic. Not. There.

            The threat of terrorism from refugees coming from the 7 countries you call “dangerous” to the USA is microscopic. Refugees from those countries have NEVER EVER EVER EVER perpetrated acts of terrorism here.

            Take a deep breath. Relax. There is no crisis of terrorism. We don’t need to sacrifice our international reputation over this nonsense.

          3. Jim Cook says:

            “More people die from rolling off the bed. More people die in car accidents. More people die from choking. More people die from heat exhaustion. we can keep going on and on. ”

            That’s all that needs to be said. Terrorism is not a significant threat to your life. STOP. BUYING. IN. TO. THE. HYPE. THAT. IS. DESIGNED. TO. PERMIT. PERSECUTION. OF. INNOCENT. POWERLESS. REFUGEES.

            Yes, I yelled that.

  5. R Jabs says:

    J Clifford,

    It has been fun debating back and fourth with you and I appreciate you using facts within your debate unlike most that I debate with. I can respect that.

    I think that we have to respectfully agree to disagree on threats of terrorism to the United States. I think that the country can determine how they want or don’t want to accept refugees and the way America decides that is by getting out and voting. That is the great part about living in a democracy.

    Again, thank you for the debate. I wish the best to you in your endeavors.

    – R Jabs

    1. J Clifford says:

      No, I don’t think this ends with a shrug and an “agree to disagree”.

      There are facts. You have repeatedly refused to deal with them.

      Voting is NOT a means for overruling the Constitution. No matter who is elected, politicians are obliged to follow the Bill of Rights.

      Donald Trump and the congressional Republicans are violating the highest law of the land. The executive order designed to target Muslims and provide special favors to Christians is just one example of the larger problem.

      That is not something that we can agree to disagree about and just wait for four years to deal with.

      There is a convergence of corruption, deceit, illegal behavior and incompetence in the current Republican government that is unprecedented in American history.

      This isn’t something to debate for the fun of it. It is a grave crisis that needs to be addressed before it destroys our country.

      1. R Jabs says:

        This is not a violation to the constitution or the bill of rights. None of the citizens of those countries are protected by the constitution or the bill of rights. Hell we can decide to no longer accept another refugee in this country period and that wouldn’t be a violation.

        We covered this before, remember. Yes the constitution extends overseas when it involves an American citizen or someone granted those rights by the United States through visa etc…

        Is it morally wrong, sure but unconstitutional or illegal, NO.

        As I state in previous comments, I don’t agree with holding up visa holders in airports when they have already been granted access which has been happening under this order and that is what bothers me.

        Donald Trump ran on this to begin with yet he was still elected. What else can I say. Do you want to debate the electoral college next?

        “Agree to disagree” was meant as if I will not be able to convince you otherwise nor will you convince me. All of the facts you stated involve you justifying why terrorism in the United States should not be a concern. I disagree and I’m not sorry for that.

        You are free to protest and speak your mind about this as you would like. I’m just not going to continue debating you about it. Just do me a favor and protest in peace.

        1. J Clifford says:

          You can’t disagree with facts, R Jabs.

          I’m presenting facts, and then you’re simply choosing to ignore that they exist.

          That’s not failing to be convinced. It’s refusing to engage with reality.

          1. R Jabs says:

            Your “facts” are statistics that have nothing to do with the executive order. Therefore, I dismiss your “facts”. You trying to justify why we should not take action to try and prevent terror attacks and I think that is rediculous.

            You are also prob anti-gun correct? You are prob all about trying to ban guns yet more people die from way more stuff than guns. However, this has nothing to do with an immigration ban just like none of the facts you provided do.

            You made your opinion clear as did I. I don’t understand why you can’t accept that. I dont agree with your argument or you facts that have nothing to do with national security and you don’t agree with mine.

    2. Jim Cook says:

      There is no respect for refugees coming from the Trump administration. You don’t get to hold the mantle of respect. People’s lives are at stake here. You need to decide where you stand — with the administration that is abusing the powerless, or against the administration that is abusing the powerless?

      1. R Jabs says:

        I don’t have to choose between supporting or not supporting an administration. I choose to view everything individually and decide on an individual basis whether or not I support the action. That’s prob the diff between all of you and me. You will be against our President no matter what he does. I will support some of his policies and be against some of them.

        If you are so concerned about innocent refugees, you should move some of them into your house and help take care of them or quit being a hypocrite. What have you done to help them besides rant on a blog? You can will sit by and complain because someone else isn’t helping them yet you haven’t done everything you can do to help them either.

        Start trying to help your fellow Americans before the rest of the world. How many children have you adopted, how many homeless and you allowed to stay in your home? How many meals have you cooked for the starving people in America. How many people have you clothed?

        I’m tired of everyone wanting to help everyone else out yet they let their fellow Americans die of starvation on the streets. People adopt children en from other countries when America has its own epidemic of children needing a home. Wake up l guys. Go out and make a real difference today and everyday here at home before worrying about what the hell we do with others.

        1. R Jabs says:


          just to let you know, I dont support this exectutive order. That does not mean that I dont support the president in other things he does. I may not support the executive order but its not because he is trying to hault accepting refugees until we have a stronger system in place, I dont support the order because it is holding people up that do have rights (Visa holders / people that have been approved to travel here already). They should not be getting held up. I support not taking refugees until we have proper vetting systems in place. Nothing will change my mind on that. You will not be able to convince me that we should blindly let people in the country. Hell, maybe we should ban all new refugees from all countries until we have proper vetting procedures across the board. Why does it pain you for people to want good vetting systems in place that are up to date with the current times?

          1. Jim Cook says:

            If you don’t support the executive order, you should join the rest of us in public protest. Lives are at stake.

            “Why does it pain you for people to want good vetting systems in place?” We have good vetting systems in place. You’re swallowing the Trump line. Name me one person in the United States who has been killed in a terrorist attack committed by a refugee. You can’t, because there hasn’t been one.

            “You will not be able to convince me that we should blindly let people in the country.” That’s the biggest straw man approach I’ve seen in quite some time.

          2. J Clifford says:

            R Jabs is getting desperate. This isn’t entertaining anymore. It’s pathological.

        2. Jim Cook says:

          False dichotomy land! I have done some things, and I don’t have to justify them to you as some kind of weird ticket for the privilege of questioning our Dear Leader.

          I can tell you’re feeling the moral strain here. Examine that moral strain and use it as a guide to find your conscience.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!