Skip to main content

Microsoft CEO Nadella comments on U.S. Executive Order ban on Immigration and offers legal advice

Yesterday, the Trump administration signed a new controversial Executive Order that temporarily bans citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering and being readmitted into the United States. The Order also put a four-month hold on allowing in refugees fleeing war-torn regions like Syria and includes women, children, and even those who fought alongside the U.S. military in Iraq.

The Order is also about businesses and employees as Microsoft's president and chief legal officer, Brad Smith has confirmed that 76 of its own are affected by the new ban. Microsoft is in contact with those employees but noted that workers with U.S. green cards (legally permanent residents) and some family members may not have all the information they need quite yet.

Smith goes on to define Microsoft's role as providing " with legal advice and assistance."

Adding more information, Smith discusses the politically volatile decision by the Trump administration and Microsoft's view:

As we have in other instances and in other countries, we're committed as a company to working with all of our employees and their families. We'll make sure that we do everything we can to provide fast and effective legal advice and assistance.More broadly, we appreciate that immigration issues are important to a great many people across Microsoft at a principled and even personal level, regardless of whether they personally are immigrants. Satya has spoken of this importance on many occasions, not just to Microsoft but to himself personally. He has done so publicly as well as in the private meetings that he and I have attended with government leaders.As a company, Microsoft believes in a strong and balanced high-skilled immigration system. We also believe in broader immigration opportunities, like the protections for talented and law-abiding young people under the Deferred Access for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Program, often called "Dreamers." We believe that immigration laws can and should protect the public without sacrificing people's freedom of expression or religion. And we believe in the importance of protecting legitimate and law-abiding refugees whose very lives may be at stake in immigration proceedings.We believe that these types of immigration policies are good for people, good for business, and good for innovation. That's why we've long worked to stand up for and raise these issues with people in governments. We will continue to do that.

Posting on LinkedIn (opens in new tab), Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella published the entire letter that was sent to all Microsoft employees. Nadella, as expected, shared an even-handed and a personal note about the Order:

As an immigrant and as a CEO, I've both experienced and seen the positive impact that immigration has on our company, for the country, and for the world. We will continue to advocate on this important topic.

Google too has expressed concerns over the new Order. CEO Sundar Pichai sent an email to its employees noting that about 100 of them were affected by the new ban and that "We'll continue to make our views on these issues known to leaders in Washington and elsewhere."

At the time of this article the Order has been in effect for less than 24 hours, but already issues with travelers, refugees, and permanent residents being turned away at US airports or from boarding flights were being reported. Likewise, protests at JFK and other major airports against the new Order were taking place.

Daniel Rubino
Executive Editor

Daniel Rubino is the Executive Editor of Windows Central, head reviewer, podcast co-host, and analyst. He has been covering Microsoft here since 2007, back when this site was called WMExperts (and later Windows Phone Central). His interests include Windows, Microsoft Surface, laptops, next-gen computing, and arguing with people on the internet.

  • Due to the controversial nature of this topic please refrain from personal attacks, vulgarity, and making it personal. Let's have an open, fair, and cordial discussion on this topic. We're all friends here. And if you're not nice and happy I'll delete things. Don't make me delete things. It's Saturday and I want to watch UFC.
  • Are executive orders law right away? I'll look it up but didn't think these things would just take place immediately? In the US doesn't it have to go through congress before any changes actually happen?
  • It is now in effect, yes. Executive orders can be challenged in the courts and Congress can act but it is the weekend now. There are plenty of reports of people being turned away for flights from other countries or a few being held at JFK due to the confusion the decision is sowing.
  • No. Executive Orders are not law. They can be overturned or made into law by Congress. EO's are a method for the POTUS to enact rules for government. For instance, an EO cannot fund projects or initiatives (like Drumph's absurd wall), which take Congress to appropriate funds (which means pay for things).
  • That's interesting, so POTUS can put certain things in place at least initially without the consent of anybody else. I never knew that. I would have expected under extreme circumstances only maybe.
  • Yeah and as ChrisLynch notes above some of these EO this week are empty e.g. expanding the military or building a wall. You need to get Congress to approve the funds to do that. Other things are easier e.g. reversing previous EOs.
  • Correct. EO's are NOT law. They cannot be. Congress is where laws are born, not the Executive Branch. So during the 8 years of President Obama, the Republicans (and conservitive media pundits) were crying "King Obama" is simply not true. They cried this because of POTUS 44's use of EO's, yet they could have very well inacted law. Yet they, the Republicans, created soo much gridlock that the US Congress was a non-functioning body for so long. And people wondered why they (US Congress) had a ~7% approval for the last 3-4 years.
  • Finally, someone stated the obvious, what most have seen as the out going governments' inability. The word is Gridlock, yes it was gridlocked to destruction of the American people. In my opinion, republican's couldn't accept the fact that a black man was in-charge which historically has been a white mans job. As stated its my opinion.
  • You're clearly incapable of seeing anything beyond your liberal bent. Please stop commenting, you are mistaken on many issues and you're embarrassing yourself.
  • I may be a minority on Windows Central but can we stay away from attacking Republicans? Democrats have their fair share of hypocritical moments.
  • Funny how the Republicans hold the majority in the House and Senate, along with huge number of various state level offices. See where that gridlock got the Democrats. It's ironic how things go full circle to haunt the Democrats and their agenda, but that will happen to Republicans as well. Too bad both parties don't simply act like adults, but that will never happen. Both sides always follow the party line versus actually doing their jobs. As long as people are "Party Biased" like Chris appears to be, we will never accomplish anything meaningfull in government.
  • The wall was already approved by congress years ago I believe.
  • Congress over time has increased the Executive Branches power. It's not in the US Constitution. Executive Power is described in the US Constitution, but mainly to "execute and enforce law". And Congress is the body of US government who starts the process of making a law. To quote Brian Dirck: "The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order, itself a rather unusual thing in those days. Executive orders are simply presidential directives issued to agents of the executive department by its boss."
  • Yeah, the powers granted to the Executive post-9/11 to Bush and Obama are worrisome.
  • Yep. And all in the name of "fighting terrorism".
  • Nah. Executive Orders must comply with existing law, and usual describe in the order under what laws the president is making the Order. A president can not create a law. Having said that, if someone disagrees that he acted inside the law, as in, not using powers given to the president, they can sue , and sometimes win. So, no, a president can't create a rule beyond his given powers. Details, details, but that's the way it is, as it should be. And this one is temporary, gives him political cover if he backs down later on. And....I didn't vote for him, or
    is that too personal?
  • Worrisome to who? Generally, the only people that care is the party out of office, so I'm not sure that ever means much. Oh, and us few libertarians, and I know that help either.
  • Daniel, yes it was only worrisome. Now it is daunting, knowing who has the upper hand on these executive powers. Still innocent people are going to suffer.
  • "Innocent people are going to suffer"? You mean for example those who refused to bake wedding cakes or take wedding photos for certain people and had huge fines slapped on them?
  • I love these terrible arguments. Like Trump himself debating on the level of a child. "But mommy, they did it first". Totally ignoring all self responsibility, losing all self respect, and showing not an once of pride. All arguments hinging on us vs them, left vs right. That huge fallacy is just a grain of sand on a beach that spans the coast of a continent. The real issue in the argument is being completely oblivious to something called "scope and scale". Comparing a business fine to life and death situations of refugees. This is why a business man makes a terrible president. The job isnt there for someone specialized in cut and dry decisions. A democratic country will not be prosperous under the lead of someone trained their whole life to be self centered. Oh though he was right, that mighty Trump. Some of his people are so stupid, they will blindly obey him as he commits murder in broad daylight. He literally called his own followers idiots, and they applauded him and pushed forward. And they will continue to push forward until it is too late for them. "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me." History will always repeat itself to the ignorant.
  • "He literally called his own followers idiots" - I assume you mean this: Well, it's a fake:
  • What the hell did you say?
  • Liberals ignore the fact that many Muslim countries murder homosexuals, and American Muslims discriminate against the LGTBQ community in our own country. That's not to say that Christians aren't guilty of this in the recent past, but we aren't murdering homosexuals and refusing services and executing honor killings. For those that are all upset about immigration, it's only temporary and those with green cards are being admitted along with many others, but perhaps you'd like to have immigrants raping your daughters like Germany is experiencing. The sad thing is most people on this thread have not lived a single day in the Middle East, and I spent years of my life there. George Washington once said: "Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company". I for one would like to be comfortable about whose crossing our borders. Remember many people in this world have values radically different than your own.
  • The President is responsible for carrying out the laws passed by Congress. Obama issued a number EOs that said he was not going to enforce certain laws, which is his right as President and went back to the early days of the US (it is called prosecutorial discretion). Other common EOs include giving pay raises to government employees, protecting certain plant and animal species on government lands, saying what can be done on government lands, etc. Repealing EOs from previous Presidents are also common, a number of those Trump has done reversed what Obama signed. For example, in 2011 issued an EO using the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 that restricted immigration from the same countries. He undid that Order at the end of his administration. Trump's EO, in effect, repeals the repeal.
  • For the sake of clarity, could you please provide the exact EO numbers?
  • Oh, you mean the wall that has existed for years and years in various forms along our border? I see you have little respect for the role of the President, which is why you addressed him incorrectly by name. @DAN I thought you were going to monitor this thread? 
  • You're saying "Drumph" now but were you saying "Obozo" when Obama made literally the exact same EO? You do know this EO and even the nations listed were done by Obama and that Trump only added his own signature over it. Something tells you you cheered along every unquestioned EO when he did and laid down precendents for everyone after him to follow for better or worse and even included appropriation of funds you just mentioned as example
  • So you want this to be a friendly conversation then you're going to indulge in one of the most primitive and barbaric forms of entertainment either on television or in person....sort of oxymoronic but most ppl shake hands after the fight unlike that rousey kid that's been on a steep fall recently. I'm not of vulgar nature but I hope the rest of our friends aren't either. Good luck if you bet on a fight tonight
  • There you go taking a light-hearted joke and making it personal.
  • Nah it's never personal, I have been with this community since I learned back in 2011 or 2012 and it's always pleasurable haha, just info and entertainment for me. Like the guy that refers to the Microsoft his as Baldmer and Nutella....just comic relief
  • What he does for entertainments outside of this is totally irrelevant to monitoring a forum. It's an extremely poor metaphor and nothing akin to parents who tell their kids not to do drugs and then go smoke crack later. It's a sport done in good faith with rules and not the "knockout game"
  • what is fair?See on left side!!!
  • Really? I don't think either side has a right to talk about the other. Both are wrong in a lot of aspects.
  • The belief of having two parties in the US is an illusion. They all take money from the same people.
  • Really sad isn't it... Their just playing with people like pawns for votes while taking millions for speaking engagements. Pay to play politics is so crooked.
  • UFC? I'm watching Royal Rumble tomorrow lol
  • And for those that support the ban, check out the not so liberal CATO Institute (very conservative think tank) report that you have a 1 in a 10.9billion per year chance of being murdered by an illegal immigrant (1 in a 3.64Billion per year chance to be murdered by a refugee terrorist attack):
  • I guess people living in the US must be the most unlikely people on the face of the Earth.  Those odds do no bear out in actual crime in many state states I have seen. Between 2008 and 2014, 40% of all murder convictions in Florida were criminal aliens. In New York it was 34% and Arizona 17.8%. During those years, criminal aliens accounted for 38% of all murder convictions in the five states of California, Texas, Arizona, Florida and New York, while illegal aliens constitute only 5.6% of the total population in those states. A number determined by the US Census but, probably underrepresented in states like California. That 38% represents 7,085 murders out of the total of 18,643. Seems more likely than 1 in 10.9 billion don't you think?
  • And where are you getting those numbers from? Please provide a link showing those numbers. I live in California, and the numbers you are quoting seem to be Violent Crime stats which there isn't a breakdown of "citizens" versus "illegal"/"undocumented" perpetrator.. I'm not a conservative, nor a Republican, yet I linked to a CATO Institute report, which is a Libertarian-based think tank in DC.
  • He cited the Us census. You can also read the annual FBI crime reports. You're 10.1 billion number is so idiotic that it implies it's impossible to be murdered by one and that you have better odds being killed by a meteorite. Under your math we should have not deaths through those means but instead we have many. Think tanks are there to sell you on something more often than not, towards an agenda - maybe political, maybe it has financial incentives, or it could be toward an agenda of control. Stop being so gullible
  • According to Trumps own BS blacks are killing everybody. So which is it the black or the immagrants? /You can Google or Bing about who you're most likely to be killed by(hint, it's over a 80% chance it will be someone of your own race)
  • You're trying to skew because you hav best odds being murdered by someone you know. Socio-econmic status can and does play into it so yes, certain races that are more impoverished and have additional variables/factors play into their situation will increase that liklihood. Chicago is a prime example and you don't do anyone any favors by looking the other way and then pressuring others to because of the "optics" or that you have an inane duty to run a defense campaign depending on how high the establishment dictates that they rank on a totem pole
  • 80% of online statistics are made up
  • Or was it 90%?
  • I see what you did there.
  • What's the chance of you losing your job to illegals?
  • really? Because Europe must be on a hot streak then. Your "stats" are also rigged to show an outcome because we can use real stats based on people murderd and by who to reach completely different odds based on widely available records. You're also citing a Koch endeavor and they are far from conservative and fund agendas no differently than Soros does, they just throw far less money around and use it more for lobbying than agitprop. The US hovers around 5 homocides per 100,000. In most cases up to 1/3 are done by illegal immigrants so that math alone completely destroys your "stats" of "10.9 billion". The fact that you even cited a 300% higher chance of being killed by a refugee terrorist instead of the much more common homocide commited by illegal aliens says enough inself right there
  • Sorry, those odd seem very made up. Comsidering that there 7 billion people on earth and counting the number of recent terrorist attacks in Europe and the the recent stories of people being murdered by an illegal or killed by illegal drunk driver who later fled to Mexcio, the odds can't be 1 in 10.9 billion. The odds would have to be at least a few hundred in 7 billion. Now if you just look at the population of north america and Europe, to which most of the illegal immigration is going, the odds should be even higher. 
  • So, keep it friendly but allow someone to refer to the president as "Drumph" (which, by the way, causes me to ignore the rest of people's comments when they refer to people by childish, moronic nicknames). I didn't like it when people referred to Obama in childish ways like that or refer to Nadella in childish ways like that.
    So, apparently Windows Central wants to be another political site like Engadget, the Verge, etc. I come here to see what the latest in Windows technology is. I can find politics all over the internet if that's what I was looking for. How disappointing.
  • I am using his real family's last name. It's not "childish". And since most people during the US Presidential campaign didn't have a problem with how he spoke (which was far more vulgar and aggressive), why is using his family real last name "childish"?
  • He has never ever used the name Drumph, nor is it the name he was born with and you know that. So you're obviously using that name in an insulting way.
  • 100% agree. Using that as his name was a direct slur against Trump.
  • "slur against Trump" please tell us again what Rush Limbaugh constantly referred to our former first lady as?
    The hypocrisy from the right of labeling progressives as "to PC" then get upset about "Drumph" is laughable....
    (Rush refered to her as "Moooooochelle" for 8 years for those that don't know)
  • One of Trump's ancestors anglicized the surname from Drumpf to Trump. Why bring it up? Why refer to Donald Trump as "Drumph" when he was borned as Donald Trump? And if you think that Rush Limbaugh is being childish, why act the same?
  • Rush Limbaugh is not posting on Windows Central.
  • No, just his followerss
  • Why would you assume that? It sounds like you're making stereotypical and prejuced assumptions about people here.
  • Firstly reflexx, I never referedto him in any way, another poster did. You can easily tell by the names in left corner of posts.
    I'm only pointing out how the "alt right" loves to name call then get butt hurt when it happens back.
    I'm as guilty of assuming as you are.
  • What does Rush have to do with this conversation? We are talking about being respectful towards the position of the President of the United States. It seems that many American's forget where they live, and many died for their freedoms. Like him or hate him, at least be respectful. Perhaps respect is a value some people adopt when it suits their purpose. I didn't alway agree with former President Obama, but I was never disrespectful towards the man. Don't lump all people into one bucket with Rush.
  • I don't like Trump. But it is childish.
  • Are you going to address mako calling his opponent hitlery? Or is it just me..hmmm who has the agenda here?
  • I don't like any of them.  LOL  The orange duck or the diaper wearing Hiltary.
  • because it's not his legal name now. Something tells me you don't have a problem capitulating to any trans-person going by a new identity because PC progressivism dictates so
  • You willfully clicked and commented on the article. Stop crying and blame yourself.
  • Earlier this week there was a political article here on WC, and another one on imore. Both were political just to be political, and the one on imore was just an all out attack. Many tech websites have turned very political to where they are no longer about tech, and if you question them on it they go on banning sprees.  This one, however told the facts, didn't inject your personal opinion either way. The way journalism is supposed to be.
  • Thank you. The funny thing is of all the Mobile Nations staff I'm 100% the most political and aggressive about it. But that's not what any of you signed up for on this site. The last thing I ever want to do is interject my personal politics into an article such as this. There are now like millions of places for people to do that. Of course, comments are another zone, so there anything goes :P Point is, I do try to respect my audience enough to not preach to them on such matters. I genuinely respect varying political opinions and love civil debate. Despite all of this craziness I appreciate you noticing my attempt to be impartial with the article. Cheers.
  • Well if it makes you feel any better I voted for former President Obama once and once for President Trump. It's nice to be Independent, but I am leaning towards Republican after seeing the mess of Hollywoods propaganda telling people how to think. Nothing like having a bunch of elite socialists telling people how to vote like their 100% in the right. The media is so biased they cannot be trusted to tell an unbiased story anymore, which is really hurting the Dems.
  • Those "elite socialists" are Americans citizens with opinions are also. Them stating their opinions is not propaganda. That's also a really terrible if their opinions effect your own thinking.
  • There is a grey line where opinion and propaganda blurs because they start using their status as a bully (somtiems literally) pulpit to prey on impressionable people - which is kind of the essence of what propaganda is...and then doubly so when personalities in hollywood/media are outted with their willingness to "become hacks", and even worse when it's on such a large scale that it's practically inescapable. These "elite socialists" throw their money to indoctrinate people with actual propganda so to say it's only their opinion is counterproduction to your own point. You are right however about the issue on people being that gullible. To paraphrase Alice Cooper "if you listen to a rockstar opinion on who to vote for, then you're a bigger idiot than they are"  
  • This is just completely ridiculous... Enjoy UFC Dan!
  • My question is how American people could vote for a president like this? US is supposed to be a showcase of freedom and openness. Undermining the integrity of European Union by advocating Brexit can lead to worldwide tragedy and war. Building a wall on the Mexican border? Angering millions of Muslims by a personal insult aka travel ban? America WHAT ARE YOU DOING!?
  • That's only your opinion. There are allready many wars going on. Before Trump.
  • So it's OK and you want more wars?
  • Marlasota, what are you talking about, you had the past president and Hiltary trying to start WWIII with Russia, what for.... well, to help provide cover for Hiltary's criminal acts, and to build a pipeline through Syria.   Literally, they were pushing Russia to war and building a false narrative, which completely failed.   Your narrative is just as bad, it didn't work then, its actually backfiring. 
  • Last time i looked, Muslims have done plenty to anger us.
    Time to stop turning the other cheek, I personally fully support the stance.
    Go Trump
  • Experience shows that it is helping and integration that work best. What Trump is doing will make the situation much worse. The US is already losing friends worldwide fast and it is only the beginning. If you contiune with such policies you will be left alone like North Korea.
  • No. America was always the police force in the world. Bombing countries when they like. It is better that the US stops that. Let the Muslim fight their own wars in their own countries.
  • "Experience shows"
    How's that working out for the hundreds of innocent French people murdered in the last few years?
    In my experience, Opinions like yours are usually from people living in a bubble that have never personally been exposed to the issues they are defending.
    Typical left of centre response.
  • You know, as a Muslim myself I find this kind of offensive because no real Muslim would ever consider those fools as Muslims. At all! They are much Muslims as the Crusades were Christians. Killing people for the sake of any religion without any meaning holds no value and isn't acceptable by all. Whether you believe it or not is your choice but honestly, to say we're the problem when there's over a billion of us in the world is kind of ignorant. Imagine you had a brother who was a real ******* but just because he's the ******* everyone says man that family is a piece of ****, the brother killed someone, smuggles drugs and rapes kids. Let's kill them all! Oh yeah, lots of sense there.
  • Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.
    Sadly, this is true.
  • Generalizing people from an entire religion, yet you call yourself an American?
  • Gee you think it was better before? Yeah all those drone strikes really made America and the world safer. I heard they finally found WMD in Iraq. ISIS had a factory there.
  • I'll just leave this here.
  • Trump has never had a hand in going to war. Can't say the same for the most recent president, 8 years of constant war, or she who lost the electoral vote by a landslide who approved of GWB's wars and continued stays.
  • I can't say Trump had a hand in going to war, but I can say he had MANY deferments to get his own self out of going to war...
  • Its like you are having a conversation with yourself.  Your comment makes no reasonable sense, I'm actually still trying to figure out what you are even talking about.
  • Marlasota: There are many other countries that refugees can go to but they choose the USA because of the goodies our stupid government gives them. Many of these people hate the USA but still want to come here. I don't understand that. They rag on our culture, our food, our customs, women etc, etc. As an American of Mexican decent I welcome a wall or a virtual wall and tougher immigration laws. My parents came to this country LEGALLY and went through the process while waiting their turn. It's a slap to the face for ALL immigrants that wait their turn and sacrifice to come here when the government (Obama, Democratic party, sanctuary cities) harbour illegals for political gain. You never see members of the Democrat party take in illegals into their homes to feed them, clothe them, educate them by using money out of their own pockets. Dems use illegals for political reasons just like they use poor Americans and the black community We are a nation of law. We can't be a welfare nation anymore.
  • No you won't see Democrats take them in, but we Christians who many of which are Republican feed homeless and help immigrants all the time. Meanwhile the Liberals fight for the right to kill their children before their born, and cry about new pipelines that will reduce dependence on others oil.  
  • You guys are despicaple. First you ban regugees from entering the country then claim that you're more charitable somehow?
  • @Barstow15
    Very well said
  • You sir, are pretty much clueless. Believe me...Trump was elected by the working class for a reason, they are the class that make the american dream a reality. The elite didnt want him, nor the political establishment nor many of the demon possesed entertainers. But the the people wanted him and we are not as deplorable as some would make you think. Maybe you need to find a better news source.
  • You're parroting talking points from sources that are wholly invested in Britain being a serf of it's own to EU bureaucrats and making money and gaining political/social power through expoloiting immigration. What's the bigger insult and to who when putting foreigners on a higher pedestal to your own citizens? Who gets insulted when they have to lose something for one of these migrants? What is more insulting to Muslims in these countries - that they aren't allowed to go to whichever country gives them the best financial incentives or the fact that outside countries RUINED their nation in the first place through war and political upheaval? Take this into consideration: Groups tied at the hip to a theocratic organization like the Muslim Brotherhood (labeled terrorist around the world) are on a PR blitz trying to sell you that accepting "refugees" is the status quo, when in fact that same Muslim Brotherhood lobbied Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Lindsey Graham and a whole slew of politicians well beyond the U.S. for "regime change" in Syria, Libya, and were very central in the Arab Spring so that we use our might to spread their influence - AND THISE WAS YEARS IN ADVANCE of any coups, assassinations, "civil wars", and "organic" protests in the middle east. So who is really to blame there?
  • Youa re confusing Tump supporters and Trump voters. Many people do support Trump and votere for him. Many people voted for him because they saw him as less objectionable than Clinton.
  • Its funny how people cant see this point. Many people thought Clinton was a much worse evil than Trump and wondered how we got here, then voted for Trump. But everyone who votes for Trump MUST support everything he says and does and probably is racist and bigotted and a xenophobe. 
  • They don't support everything he says and frankly it's what people like say that probably makes them act out in spite even more. You used "racist", "bigot", "misogynist" and "xenophobe" not because that was the case, but because you were conditioned to bark when the bell rang like Pavlov's dog in order to try and shame everyone out of what their opinion is whenever it differs from yours to the point the words are absolutely devoid of any effect - they're worthless now. This is what the Chinese Red Guard and the "red scarfs" of the Khmer Rouge did at first until that wasn't enough and they had to resort to violence as the mainline tool of intimidatation...which on cue with what we're starting to see now
  • Translation: "Can't we all just get along so I can sit back and watch two people try and kill each other like civilized human beings?" LOL!
  • Very good post Daniel. The only personal attacks I would lob is at the current Pres. That being said, Apple, MS, Alphabet, etc...Please, move to Canada....we are much more welcoming to diversifying than Chester Cheeto is. And Mexico, Just loop around the US and continue to do trade with Canada...
  • Go Trump!
    Fantastic to see a politician delivering on what he said he would do for once.
    Political correctness had stifled reality for far to long.
    If you don't like him, instead of complaining and whinging, make sure you vote next time!!
    Democracy in full swing currently, love it.
  • I question the education level of some Trump supporters. This has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with appeasing his bigoted base. No Amercians have been killed by people from any of these countires.
  • If it was truly bigoted then wouldn't it umbreall every muslim nation and just the ones that are hotspots...ones that our government already had designated as such? The nations with highest Muslim populations are left out of this temporary travel moritoreum. And before you say "well Trump's not invested in any of them", Keep in mind that practically no US business is and in many cases, illegal to do so and requires exemptions. This is a 90-day pause until policy is devised and change from the blanket UN-dictated one that follows a globalist agenda. I think his biggest mistake in this is not honoring commitments to green card holders (but it's there in the fine print when you apply) and that he should have been much more active in communicating to us the plan, the reasoning, and the end game to avoid the usual fearmongers from hijacking the narrative
  • Facts, facts, facts! Facts get in the way of my emotion! /s ;)
  • sorry-meant to say: " wouldn't it umbrella every muslim nation and not just..." was using my phone and multi-tasking which is why all the typos. I swear I'm not drunk!
  • No Americans were killed, but there were Europeans killed by people from some of these countries. I know I waited 6 months when me and my parents immigrated from the former Soviet Unions as political refugees. Shouldn't every person requesting asylum be vetted to try try to find criminals and people affiliated with terrorist groups? All the Syrian refugees requesting asylum are in eastern europe right now. So, they are not in any immediate danger. The main problem is that these eastern European countries need help dealing with the number of people. By the way, isn't it funny that almost no middle eastern country is offering to take in these refugees.  
  • Tell that to the hundreds of innocent French murdered over the last few years in the name of religion.
  • And you mocked us italians about Berlusconi. Now enjoy your Berlusconi 2.0 !
  • somehow the comments will become about windows phone
  • lol, for once that may be welcomed
  • If only Microsoft cared about their products as much as they care about people, WP wouldn't have less than 1% market share. Way to go M$ 😑
  • Lol
  • <