New WikiLeaks – Obama’s CIA Election Meddling In France, Israel – Still Harping On Russia

screen-shot-2017-02-17-at-12-21-18-pm

By Rick Wells

We already knew that Hussein Obama sent his “community organizer” rabble-rousers, at our expense, into Israel in 2015 in a failed attempt to defeat sitting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Now comes more evidence that the Democrat Marxists and their minions in the intelligence community observe a policy of do as I say, not as I do.

The Democrats and RINOs are all stomping their feet and making threats over the non-existent Russian involvement in our election, the supposed hacking of the loosest cyber security known to man or woman, that of Democrat politicians.

They’re outraged that any government would insert itself into the domestic elections of another, or attempt to or successfully overthrow the leader of another nation, unless it’s being done by the United States. Then it’s not talked about, it’s a non-issue that is quickly forgotten.

A declaration of war and throwing the most volatile region of the world into chaos are the kind of things that can be overlooked if they were done by the right people for reasons that suit their interests. The killing of foreign leaders, as was the case with Saddam Hussein in Iraq or Gaddafi in Libya, is just not that big of a deal, they would have us believe. Throwing their nations into turmoil and Islamic totalitarianism can be considered a good thing, if the right person or oligarchs were calling the shots.

But nobody had better reveal the truth about Hillary Clinton, that she’s a sleazy, parasitic criminal. If that happens they’ll go ballistic. More evidence was just unveiled of the Democrat double standard, this time with elections in France. Start the countdown.

Once again, thanks to WikiLeaks, the hypocrisy and selective outrage of the Democrats, as well as their penchant for illegally intruding into the affairs of any nation, friend or foe,  has been revealed. France, our ally, has been added to the list of nations targeted by our CIA. There is no reason to inquire as to various political strategies or internal communications unless one is seeking to use that information to either affect the outcome or blackmail at a later date. Consistent with the possibility of intrusion into the formulation of the new government, WikiLeaks noted that the CIA operation ran for ten months from Nov 21st, 2011 until Sep 29th, 2012, with the election taking place in April-May of 2012. No explanation was offered by the CIA as to why they continued their “research” for over four months following the completion of the election cycle. They weren’t going to mention any of it, until now.

According to the WikiLeaks release, “All major French political parties were targeted for infiltration by the CIA’s human (“HUMINT”) and electronic (“SIGINT”) spies in the seven months leading up to France’s 2012 presidential election. The revelations are contained within three CIA tasking orders published today by WikiLeaks as context for its forth coming CIA Vault 7 series. Named specifically as targets are the French Socialist Party (PS), the National Front (FN) and Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) together with current President Francois Hollande, then President Nicolas Sarkozy, current round one presidential front runner Marine Le Pen, and former presidential candidates Martine Aubry and Dominique Strauss-Khan.”

WikiLeaks releases ‘CIA espionage orders’ for 2012 French presidential election

WikiLeaks has released three classified CIA espionage orders revealing details of an alleged seven-month long spying campaign by the agency ahead of the 2012 French presidential election.

*

The documents disclose that all of France’s major political parties were targeted for infiltration by the CIA‘s human (“HUMINT”) and electronic (“SIGINT”) spies.

screen-shot-2017-02-16-at-4-49-54-pm

The CIA assessed that President Nicholas Sarkozy‘s UMP party was not assured re-election and ordered officers to find out Sarkozy’s private deliberations “on the other candidates” as well as how he interacted with his advisors, according to the documents.

The agency also reportedly outlined orders specific to the UMP (Union for a Popular Movement), including obtaining the party’s “Strategic Election Plans” and gleaning private thoughts within the party on Sarkozy’s campaign strategies.

screen-shot-2017-02-16-at-4-51-35-pm

The agency also outlined orders specific to the UMP (Union for a Popular Movement), including obtaining the party’s “Strategic Election Plans” and gleaning private thoughts within the party on Sarkozy’s campaign strategies.

According to the papers, the CIA justification for seeking detailed information on the inner workings of the party was to assist “analysts assess and prepare US key policymakers” for the post-election French political landscape and the potential impact on US-France relations.

Another secret CIA order included in the leaks entitled, “Non Ruling Political Parties and Candidates Strategic Election Plans,” demands information on rising party leaders and emerging political parties.

The information sought ranged from party strategies, opinions on the US and efforts to reach out to other countries, including Germany, UK, Libya, Israel, Palestine, Syria and Cote d’Ivoire.

The CIA also requested details on how candidates were funded, their views on the French economy, and the Greek debt crisis the documents indicate. The agency was also interested in French political opinions on the German model of export-led growth and any specific proposals that would help solve the Eurozone crisis.

READ MORE: Thousands of dossiers on French presidential contenders available in archives – WikiLeaks

The documents indicate that the CIA operation initially ran for 10 months from November 21, 2011, to September 29, 2012, and continued after the April-May 2012 French presidential election and into the formation of the new government.

The revelations are contained within three alleged CIA tasking orders, totaling seven pages, and published by WikiLeaks as context for its forthcoming ‘CIA Vault 7 series’. WikiLeaks began tweeting about the mysterious ‘Vault 7’ series earlier this month, sending speculation into overdrive online over what the cryptic tweets indicated.

screen-shot-2017-02-16-at-4-58-30-pm

ISIS recruiting child refugees as they head to Europe…

screen-shot-2017-02-06-at-4-39-22-pm

By Ben Farmer

Hundreds of asylum-seeking young people are going missing from care once they arrive in Britain, amid concerns they have been targeted for radicalisation by extremist groups during their journey to the UK, a think tank report has warned.

Militant groups such as Islamic State are deliberately preying on vulnerable young people for recruitment, as they make the perilous journey across the Middle East and north Africa, to Europe.

Extremists try to “buy” the allegiance of migrants and make them feel indebted, by working with people traffickers and funding their travel, the research by the Quilliam Foundation found.

screen-shot-2017-02-06-at-4-41-44-pm

Hundreds of young people are then dropping out of the asylum system when they arrive in the UK because they fear they will be sent home. Once beyond sight of the authorities, they may then regain contact with the smuggling networks and extremists they met on their way.

Nikita Malik, lead author of the report and a senior researcher with the counter extremism think tank, said young people risked “falling back into the hands of traffickers and extremists who have helped them. It’s almost a sense of debt.”

More than 340 unaccompanied asylum seeking children went missing in the first nine months of 2015, double the number from a year earlier. By the end of 2015, 132 were still missing.

Young people are being targeted in refugee camps in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, and also as they pass through Libya. The report found Islamic State was offering free passage for those crossing the Libyan deserts, if they pledged allegiance.

It found: “Though a particular individual may refuse to join the organisation’s ranks at previous stages, exhaustion, insecurity and an increasing sense of physical and financial difficulty as a result of the journey may encourage refugees to join at a later date.”

Once at the Mediterranean coast, Islamic State offers up to £800 to join up.

The report found: “For many refugees, joining Islamic State is a more certain source of income compared to attempting to obtain a job after reaching the EU by way of crossing international borders.”

Islamic States is “clearly aware of the value of these refugee routes for the purposes of recruitment and for exporting their operatives into Europe”.

The research found children and young people, sometimes travelling alone and often uneducated, are particularly prone to propaganda.

Islamic State sees children it has recruited and indoctrinated “as an important resource”.

The researchers found “Children are easier to indoctrinate, intimidate, and mould, requiring less by way of resources and money.”

“Young people, whose daily lives are significantly disrupted by conflict, can also at times gravitate towards violent groups to attain greater status within their families, searching for a sense of usefulness within their family unit in the face of a potential feeling of being a burden.”

Notorious BLM activist judge halts Trump travel ban nationwide

It is absurd to think it “unconstitutional” to take national security measures to protect the American people. Other Presidents have instituted immigration measures; why is President Trump exempt? And where in the Constitution does it say that terrorists or any foreign national have a constitutional right to come here?

For those who never fully understood how deeply the enemies of freedom have firmly entrenched themselves in the courts, academia, government agencies, etc., this should be a wake-up call. Those of us doing this work day in, day out are keenly aware, but America is getting a real education in just how subversive and dangerous the left is.

They know where to file these lawsuits and which judges to go before. The web is extensive and well-funded.

This was another Bush spineless liberal appointee. The notorious activist U.S. District Judge James Robart has expressed a strong anti-police bias when dealing with a case involving Seattle police union’s contract negotiations. Judge Robart went on a rant against police and proclaimed, “Black Lives Matter.”

Robart is an activist judge who sees the court system as means to change law, not enforce it.

This is why the Supreme Court is so critical to our defense of freedom.

BUSH-APPOINTED JUDGE HALTS TRUMP TRAVEL BAN NATIONWIDE

The Hill,

A federal judge in Seattle issued a temporary nationwide restraining order Friday stopping President Trump’s executive order banning citizens of seven countries from entering the United States.

Judge James Robart, who was appointed by former President George Bush in 2003, ruled the executive order would be stopped nationwide, effective immediately.

“The Constitution prevailed today,” Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson said in a statement after the ruling. “No one is above the law — not even the President.”

“It’s our president’s duty to honor this ruling and I’ll make sure he does,” Ferguson added.

The ruling, made at the request of Washington and Minnesota, is the broadest to date against Trump’s executive order.

Ferguson, a Democrat, filed the lawsuit three days after Trump signed the executive order. The suit argued that the travel ban targets Muslims and violates constitutional rights of immigrants and their families.

The White House pledged action “at the earliest possible time” in a late Friday statement.

“At the earliest possible time, the Department of Justice intends to file an emergency stay of this order and defend the executive order of the President, which we believe is lawful and appropriate,” the late Friday statement read.

The White House initially labeled the judge’s action an “outrageous order” but within 10 minutes had sent a second, nearly identical statement that stripped out that adjective.

“The president’s order is intended to protect the homeland and he has the constitutional authority and responsibility to protect the American people,” it continued.

The State Department said it was working with the Department of Homeland Security to determine how the ruling affects operations, according to CNN.

capture

In an interview with CNN Friday evening, Ferguson said he “expected win, lose or draw” that the case would move “fairly quickly through, up to the Ninth Circuit” Court of Appeals — “just because of the magnitude of the executive order.”

“I’m prepared for this case to go all the way to the Supreme Court whichever way the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals goes,” he said, anticipating a challenge to Robart’s ruling. “It’s a case of that magnitude, it’s a case that frankly I think will ultimately end up before the U.S. Supreme Court, so that would not surprise me one way or the other.”

Lawyers for the government had argued the states lacked standing to sue, according to the Seattle Times, and that the order was within Trump’s executive powers.

But the judge rejected that argument, saying the states had already suffered harm from the travel ban. He also said the lawsuit challenging the legality of the order has a good chance of succeeding.

“It’s a wonderful day for the rule of law in this country,” said Washington state solicitor general Noah Purcell, according to Reuters.

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who grew emotional discussing the travel ban last weekend, praised the ruling in a Friday night statement.

This ruling is a victory for the Constitution and for all of us who believe this un-American executive order will not make us safer. President Trump should heed this ruling and he ought to back off and repeal the executive order once and for all.

Trump’s action bans people from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Sudan and Somalia from entering the U.S. for 90 days, and temporarily halts the United States’ refugee resettlement program for 120 days, while indefinitely suspending resettlement for refugees from Syria.

The order, issued last Friday, immediately stirred controversy when travelers who were en route to the U.S. when it was signed were detained at airports. Protesters demonstrated at airports across the county last weekend.

CNN reported that Customs and Border Protection held a 9 p.m. call with airlines and said it’s “back to business as usual” in the wake of the judge’s action.

Reporter Jon Ostrower added that the systems that flagged and blocked travelers from the seven countries named in the ban were being lifted and rescinded visas were being reissued.

Islamic State Supporters React Angrily to Trump’s Temporary Refugee Halt

By Aaron Klein and Ali Waked

Islamic State sympathizers and militants predictably reacted angrily to President Donald Trump’s temporary halt on refugees while the government revamps its flawed security screening process.

Breitbart Jerusalem obtained access to correspondence posted in a closed chat group that utilizes the encrypted Telegram messaging service. The chat group serves as an internal Twitter of sorts for IS jihadists and sympathizers, and it has been used in the past to issue IS communications.

“The madman Trump is still ignorant of politics, science and culture,” IS supporter Abu Maslama wrote to his associates on the Telegram app. “That Islam-hating Crusader prevents Muslims from entering America. That failed Nazi thinks that this will stop the mujahedeen from striking his country. Doesn’t he understand that his country will implode? When that happens, he’ll panic and backpedal on his Islam-hating policies.”

capture

Maslama offered no explanation as to how the U.S. will purportedly implode from implementing stricter security screening procedures aimed at keeping terrorists out of the country. He also falsely claimed that Trump was preventing Muslims from entering the country. In actuality, Trump’s executive order halts visas for 90 days for “immigrants and non-immigrants” from Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Iran, and Iraq. The order further suspended the entry of all refugees for 120 days, indefinitely blocked Syrian refugees from entering and lowered the ceiling to 50,000 for refugees allowed to enter the U.S. during Fiscal Year 2017.

Meanwhile, Telegram user Omra Alfarouq, another IS supporter, wrote: “The decisions made by that fool (Trump) will drag America and its supporters into a war against each other that will be sparked by the mujahedeen, who will take advantage of it to settle in.”

capture

Utilizing racist language, Alfarouq continued, “The confrontations with the blacks that started under the donkey Obama will repeat itself, but this time in a much broader way among the Americans. And the Muslims will exploit these confrontations to strike in the heart of the infidel country. Don’t think victory will come on its own. It will emanate from their stupidity and their criminal acts that attest to their hatred of Islam. Allah in his wisdom will strengthen the mujahedeen and lead them to victory.”

An IS supporter who messages under the name “IS Will Live Forever” wrote: “Trump and (Vladimir) Putin the Crusaders’ hatred for Islam is conspicuous and their policies only prove it. The war against the Crusaders began and will end with their defeat. We are at the end of times, and what times they are – the times of the oppressed mujahedeen on the face of the earth. The wisdom of Allah will allow the mujahedeen and the oppressed to rise up and cut off the heads of Crusaders… and whoever supports them among those who falsely claim to be Muslim.”

capture

IS, al-Qaida and other terrorist groups have reportedly been seeking ways to take advantage of the Middle East refugee crisis with the goal of infiltrating Western nations.

Last November, a car-ramming and mass stabbing attack was carried out at Ohio State University by Somali refugee Abdul Razak Ali Artan, who was reportedly inspired by IS.

In 2013, ABC News first revealed that two years earlier, the State Department imposed a freeze over the processing of Iraqi refugees for six months. The halt was the result of the discovery of two al-Qaida members admitted as refugees from Iraq who were living in Bowling Green, Kentucky and who had admitted to targeting U.S. troops in Iraq.  The network at the time also cited FBI agents conceding that “several dozen suspected terrorist bombmakers, including some believed to have targeted American troops, may have mistakenly been allowed to move to the United States as war refugees.”

Seven Inconvenient Facts About Trump’s Refugee Actions

By John Hayward

The sober and logical reasons for President Donald Trump’s executive order on refugees and visitors are rising above the noise after an evening of hysterical over-reactions and emotional meltdowns on the nation’s TV networks.

Advocates of sane, secure immigration policy have long noted that it’s almost impossible to have a reasonable discussion of the refugee and immigration issues, because it’s been sentimentalized and politicized beyond the realm of rational thought.

This weekend brings them another superb example of media-magnified shrieking about fascism, bleating about “white nationalists,” howling about “religious persecution,” false invocations of the Constitution, and theatrical sobbing on behalf of the Statue of Liberty.

For readers who want to wallow in the emotion, examples can be found in this handy dossier of hysteria compiled by the Washington Post. But clear-eyed adults prefer to examine plain facts about Trump’s executive order:

1. It is NOT a “Muslim ban.” You will search the Executive Order in vain for mentions of Islam, or any other religion. By Sunday morning, the media began suffering acute attacks of honesty and writing headlines such as “Trump’s Latest Executive Order: Banning People From 7 Countries and More” (CNN) and printing the full text of the order.

Granted, CNN still slips the phrase “Muslim-majority countries” into every article about the order, including the post in which they reprinted its text in full, but CNN used the word “Muslim,” not Trump. The order applies to all citizens of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. It does not specify Muslims. The indefinite hold on Syrian refugees will affect Christians and Muslims alike.

As Tim Carney at the Washington Examiner points out, the largest Muslim-majority countries in the world are not named in the Executive Order.

More countries may be added to the moratorium in the days to come, as the Secretary of Homeland Security has been instructed to complete a 30-day review of nations that don’t provide adequate information for vetting visa applicants.

It’s also noteworthy that the ban is not absolute. Exceptions for “foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas” are expressly made in the order. The Departments of State and Homeland Security can also grant exceptions on a “case-by-case basis,” and “when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.”

There is a provision in the Executive Order that says applications based on religious persecution will be prioritized “provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.”

This has been denounced as a “stealth Muslim ban” by some of the very same people who were conspicuously silent when the Obama administration pushed Christians – who the most savagely persecuted minority in the Middle East, with only the Yazidis offering real competition — to the back of the migration line.

2. The order is based on security reviews conducted by President Barack Obama’s deputies. As White House counselor Kellyanne Conway pointed out on “Fox News Sunday,” the seven nations named in Trump’s executive order are drawn from the Terrorist Prevention Act of 2015. The 2015 “Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015” named Iraq, Iran, Sudan, and Syria, while its 2016 update added Libya, Somalia, and Yemen.

“These are countries that have a history of training, harboring, exporting terrorists. We can’t keep pretending and looking the other way,” said Conway.

3. The moratorium is largely temporary. Citizens of the seven countries named as security risks are banned from entering the United States for the next 90 days. Refugee processing is halted for 120 days. The longest-lived aspect of the ban may prove to be the halt on Syrian refugees, but that isn’t given a time frame at all. It will last “until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest,” as President Trump wrote.

4. Obama banned immigration from Iraq, and Carter banned it from Iran.
“Fact-checking” website PolitiFact twists itself into knots to avoid giving a “true” rating to the absolutely true fact that Jimmy Carter banned Iranian immigration in 1980, unless applicants could prove they were enemies of the Khomenei theocracy.

One of Politifact’s phony talking points states that Carter “acted against Iranian nationals, not an entire religion.” As noted above, Trump’s Executive Order is precisely the same – it does not act against an “entire religion,” it names seven countries.

As for Barack Obama, he did indeed ban immigration from Iraq, for much longer than Trump’s order bans it from the seven listed nations, and none of the people melting down today uttered a peep of protest. Richard Grenell summed it up perfectly in a Tweet:

capture

5. Trump’s refugee caps are comparable to Obama’s pre-2016 practices: David French, who was touted as a spoiler candidate to keep Donald Trump out of the White House during the presidential campaign – in other words, not a big Trump fan – wrote a lengthy and clear-headed analysis of the Executive Order for National ReviewHe noted that after the moratorium ends in 120 days, Trump caps refugee admissions at 50,000 per year… which is roughly the same as President Obama’s admissions in 2011 and 2012, and not far below the 70,000 per year cap in place from 2013 to 2015.

Obama had fairly low caps on refugees during the worst years of the Syrian civil war. He didn’t throw open the doors to mass refugee admissions until his final year in office. Depending on how Trump’s review of Syrian refugee policy turns out, he’s doing little more than returning admissions to normal levels after a four-month pause for security reviews.

6. The Executive Order is legal: Those invoking the Constitution to attack Trump’s order are simply embarrassing themselves. The President has clear statutory authority to take these actions. As noted, his predecessors did so, without much controversy.

Most of the legal arguments against Trump’s order summarized by USA Today are entirely specious, such as attacking him for “banning an entire religion,” which the order manifestly does not do. Critics of the order have a political opinion that it will in effect “ban Muslims,” but that’s not what it says. Designating specific nations as trouble spots and ordering a pause is entirely within the President’s authority, and there is ample precedent to prove it.

It should be possible to argue with the reasoning behind the order, or argue that it will have negative unintended consequences, without advancing hollow legal arguments. Of course, this is America 2017, so a wave of lawsuits will soon be sloshing through the courts.

7. This Executive Order is a security measure, not an arbitrary expression of supposed xenophobia. Conway stressed the need to enhance immigration security from trouble spots in her “Fox News Sunday” interview. French also addressed the subject in his post:

When we know our enemy is seeking to strike America and its allies through the refugee population, when we know they’ve succeeded in Europe, and when the administration has doubts about our ability to adequately vet the refugees we admit into this nation, a pause is again not just prudent but arguably necessary. It is important that we provide sufficient aid and protection to keep refugees safe and healthy in place, but it is not necessary to bring Syrians to the United States to fulfill our vital moral obligations.

French’s major objection to the Executive Order is that applying it to green-card holders is “madness,” but unfortunately many of the terrorists who attacked Americans during the Obama years were green-card holders. Daniel Horowitz and Chris Pandolfo addressed that subject at Conservative Review:

Both liberals and conservatives expressed concern over hundreds of individuals going over to fight for ISIS. We are already limited in how we can combat this growing threat among U.S. citizens. Given that it is completely legal to exclude non-citizens upon re-entry, Trump extended the ban to legal permanent residents as well.

If a Somali refugee is travelling back to Somalia (so much for credible fear of persecution!), government officials should have the ability to prevent that person from coming back when necessary. Obviously, there are some individuals from these seven countries who already have green cards and we might not want to exclude. That is why the order grants discretion to the State Department to issue case-by-case exemptions for “religious persecution, “or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship.” A CBP agent is always stationed at any international airport from which these individuals would board a direct flight to the United States (Paris and Dubai, for example). That individual would not allow anyone covered by this ban onto a U.S.-bound flight unless he grants them a hardship exemption.

Indeed, it appears that green card holders returning yesterday from those seven countries were all granted entry.

Because he is a progressive globalist, Obama deliberately blinded us to security threats, in the name of political correctness and left-wing ideology. Ninety or 120 days isn’t much time for Trump to turn all that around, especially because it is unlikely much will change in the seven countries Trump named.

The hysterical reaction to Trump’s order illustrates the very thing that worries advocates of strong immigration security: Americans’ security is the lowest priority, far below progressive ideology, crass political opportunism, and emotional theater.

We’re being effectively told by the theatrical class to tolerate a certain amount of Islamic terrorism because their feelings would be hurt by the tough measures we need protest ourselves from a tough enemy. But this time, President Trump is proving tough enough to push our security up into the top priority.

 

Trump’s ‘Muslim ban’ sees passengers detained at airports, threatens Silicon Valley

capture

Details have emerged of passengers being prevented from boarding their flights to the US as President Donald Trump’s executive order banning people from seven Muslim countries comes into effect.

*

Refugees from Syria have been banned indefinitely while citizens from six other predominantly Muslim nations – Iraq, Iran, Libya, Yemen, Sudan and Somalia – have been banned from entering the US for 90 days unless they possess a diplomatic visa. The order also bans the admission of all refugees for at least 120 days while the government puts a new vetting system in place.

*

Dutch airline KLM said they refused carriage to seven passengers on foot of the ban while Reuters are reporting that five Iraqi citizens and one Yemeni, who all held valid US visas, were barred from boarding an EgyptAir flight from Cairo to New York on Saturday after Trump signed the order Friday.

The passengers were stopped and instead placed on flights headed for their home countries, Reuters said, citing airport sources.

On Saturday, Qatar Airways advised US-bound passengers from the banned countries that they needed to have either a US green card or diplomatic visa to gain entry to the country, as both immigrant and tourist visas were no longer sufficient to gain access.

However, a Homeland Security spokeswoman said Saturday that the executive action also covers green card holders from the seven targeted countries.

“It will bar green card holders,” Gillian Christensen, acting Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman, said in an email cited by Reuters.

There have also been reports of refugees and immigrants being detained at airports across the US in the wake of the order.

The detentions quickly prompted legal challenges as lawyers representing two Iraqi men being held at JFK Airport filed a writ of habeas corpus seeking to have their clients released. The detained men are Hameed  Khalid  Darweesh, who was granted a Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) for his service to the United States as an interpreter, engineer and contractor, and Haider Sameer Abdulkhaleq  Alshawi, who was granted refugee status due to a family association with the US military. The lawyers also filed a motion to represent all refugees and immigrants who they said were being unlawfully detained at ports of entry.

capture

Executives from leading tech companies have also spoken out against the executive order and its potentially damaging effect on the running of their businesses.

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was among the first to be critical of Trump’s order. In a post on the social network he cited his family history of immigration and said the United States is a nation of immigrants.

capture

Google contacted staff overseas to warn them that they would be affected by the order, advising them to get back to the US immediately. In a note to employees seen by Bloomberg, Chief Executive Officer Sundar Pichai was severely critical of the order.

“It’s painful to see the personal cost of this executive order on our colleagues,” Pichai reportedly wrote to his colleagues. “We’ve always made our view on immigration issues known publicly and will continue to do so.”

More than 100 Google staff have been affected by the order. The employees in question normally work in the US but just happened to be abroad when the order was signed.

*

Meanwhile, Microsoft also flagged the executive order as a human resources concern. In its latest quarterly report, the tech company said that its “business is based on successfully attracting and retaining talented employees” in an “extremely competitive” industry.

“We are limited in our ability to recruit internationally by restrictive domestic immigration laws,” the company notes.

“Changes to U.S. immigration policies that restrain the flow of technical and professional talent may inhibit our ability to adequately staff our research and development efforts. If we are less successful in our recruiting efforts, or if we cannot retain key employees, our ability to develop and deliver successful products and services may be adversely affected.”