Jump to content
knapplc

The Republican Utopia

Recommended Posts

commando    1,626

 

 

 

Yes.

 

LINK

 

To further provide the example, Trump's Executive Order bans Muslims from: Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Conspicuously missing from that list? Indonesia, where he's currently pursuing business deals. Another Trump business partner not included on the list: Saudi Arabia.

Really? This is your proof that his business interests are the deciding factor for which countries he is banning muslim immigration from and which he is allowing it?

 

Looks to me like he has identified the correct countries and the ones with the most potential problems. It is worth noting that 2016 saw a record influx of Muslim immigration to the US and the first year ever that Muslim immigration exceeded Christian immigration. None of those 7 countries would be defined as friendly to the US, whereas I think Saudi Arabia does fit that category. Trump has interests in about 144 companies in 25 different countries. Is it really hard to believe that he does not in what are arguably the 7 unfriendliest countries to the US? I don't see how this proves his business interests have one thing to do with his policy as regards this. I guess we could hold it against him that he doesn't do business in more countries or that he didn't ban more countries but that wouldn't be very consistent with also vilifying him for placing a temporary ban from any country or claiming he is too involved globally. The fact that he does have business interests in a couple countries that possibly could have been worthy of the list is, like I originally said, quite the stretch. Pretty weak sauce IMO.

 

15 of the 19 sept. 11 terrorists were saudi

 

I know this.

 

We also operate military bases in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi's have historically cooperated with the US government. If I recall, I think we based our Desert Storm operations out of their country and they also provided troops to the coalition. And they happen to be a pretty huge player in our countries Mideast oil interests.

 

Still, none of this proves that his personal business interests have one thing to do with this policy decision. There are plenty of things he can be legitimately criticized for. Why the tendency to criticize absolutely everything, even the things that make pretty damn good sense?

 

if most of the terrorists who have done the most damage in the u.s. have come from saudi arabia it makes no sense to not ban them also IMO. but hey...herr Trump knows everything about everything so never mind what makes sense or no sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knapplc    19,301

It's telling that we're requiring more stringent facts regarding Trump's business dealings before they'll be believed than we required for things like his tax disclosures.

 

If you can't believe Trump has ethical conflicts with 144 companies in 25 different companies unless you have absolute proof, why wouldn't you demand to see his taxes before voting for him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Comfortably Numb    5,061

 

 

Yes.

 

LINK

 

To further provide the example, Trump's Executive Order bans Muslims from: Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Conspicuously missing from that list? Indonesia, where he's currently pursuing business deals. Another Trump business partner not included on the list: Saudi Arabia.

Really? This is your proof that his business interests are the deciding factor for which countries he is banning muslim immigration from and which he is allowing it?

 

Looks to me like he has identified the correct countries and the ones with the most potential problems. It is worth noting that 2016 saw a record influx of Muslim immigration to the US and the first year ever that Muslim immigration exceeded Christian immigration. None of those 7 countries would be defined as friendly to the US, whereas I think Saudi Arabia does fit that category. Trump has interests in about 144 companies in 25 different countries. Is it really hard to believe that he does not in what are arguably the 7 unfriendliest countries to the US? I don't see how this proves his business interests have one thing to do with his policy as regards this. I guess we could hold it against him that he doesn't do business in more countries or that he didn't ban more countries but that wouldn't be very consistent with also vilifying him for placing a temporary ban from any country or claiming he is too involved globally. The fact that he does have business interests in a couple countries that possibly could have been worthy of the list is, like I originally said, quite the stretch. Pretty weak sauce IMO.

 

 

 

So you're giving the whole executive order a pass because you choose not to believe, with supporting evidence like "...2016 saw a record influx of Muslim immigration to the US and the first year ever that Muslim immigration exceeded Christian immigration," that Trump would have ulterior motives with this move.

 

OK.

 

What? That is not a logical conclusion to what I posted at all.

 

First, that was not my supporting evidence of anything other than there may be legitimate concerns for banning immigration from certain countries. And second, you are the one making unproven claims that he has ulterior motives. When such a claim is only cursory in nature and it doesn't appear to be as, or more, compelling than the legitimate reasons for banning immigration from those countries, then yes, I will ask for more compelling evidence.

 

And, so I am very clear with my position, I think placing a temporary ban on immigration from those countries is a great idea.

Is this where/when people turn this into an I must support everything Trump thing? Seems like people want to make 2 camps; either you're against everything or you must be for everything. Personally I think that is complete bullsh#t. I've seen a whole lot of the against everything Trump crowd but I have yet to see anyone supporting everything. I sure don't support everything but I will speak up when I see something worth supporting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knapplc    19,301
Is this where/when people turn this into an I must support everything Trump thing? Seems like people want to make 2 camps; either you're against everything or you must be for everything. Personally I think that is complete bullsh#t.

 

 

I support Trump's proposals on national infrastructure (pending further review), so if this is the case, I guess I'm in the "I support everything Trump does" straw man you're trying to create here.

 

And, so I am very clear with my position, I think placing a temporary ban on immigration from those countries is a great idea.

 

What will that accomplish, other than harming refugees?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Comfortably Numb    5,061

Is he banning only Muslisms from these countries?

To be honest, I am not sure. I do know that there are exemptions on ban for minorities fleeing religious persecution. And, at least for the time being, the bans are temporary until the situation can be fully evaluated. Considering his predecessor set goals to allow unprecedented immigration from these potentially troublesome locations, it seems fairly reasonable to me. I mean the government had already instituted travel bans to these countries. Why have those bans not been roundly criticized?

 

I can accept that this is more about fear and xenophobia than it is about business dealings.

I would agree with this. But I also accept that it is more about logical decision making than anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zoogs    6,367

Here's an op-ed that I think lays out some compelling criticisms of the exec order: https://qz.com/895042/trump-muslim-ban-trumps-hypocritical-immigration-executive-order-punishes-muslims-from-countries-america-has-destroyed/

 

It makes sense to me. But I never supported these de-facto Muslim bans to begin with, so it's preaching to the choir.

 

I'm skeptical that this makes us safer, and I do instead see it as selective punishment through denial of entry. In Syria's case, those are desperate refugees we're talking about. In other cases, the ban only makes sense if we see these immigrants not as a hardworking, highly skilled class trying to better their families' future, but as dangerous criminals. The latter is a common theme emanating from the Trump campaign, directed in many different directions, and I reject it without reservation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knapplc    19,301

Considering his predecessor set goals to allow unprecedented immigration from these potentially troublesome locations, it seems fairly reasonable to me. I mean the government had already instituted travel bans to these countries. Why have those bans not been roundly criticized?

Can you cite your sources for "unprecedented immigration" coming to America from these seven countries? Can you cite your sources for "more Muslims immigrated to America than Christians?"

 

Why should we criticize travel bans to dangerous countries? Why shouldn't we allow refugees safe harbor in America? Are we done being the "Land of the free" and the "Home of the brave?"

 

This immigration ban seems the opposite of brave. It seems like a reaction out of fear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Comfortably Numb    5,061

 

Is this where/when people turn this into an I must support everything Trump thing? Seems like people want to make 2 camps; either you're against everything or you must be for everything. Personally I think that is complete bullsh#t.

 

 

I support Trump's proposals on national infrastructure (pending further review), so if this is the case, I guess I'm in the "I support everything Trump does" straw man you're trying to create here.

 

And, so I am very clear with my position, I think placing a temporary ban on immigration from those countries is a great idea.

 

What will that accomplish, other than harming refugees?

 

Sure it may harm some refugees but which country's refugees are you more concerned about than US citizens?

Maybe it will accomplish providing time to implement reasonable vetting procedures to stop the open door policy and hopefully provide more safeguards against allowing potential terrorists into our country.

 

If you lived in a high crime area, would you routinely leave your doors unlocked and post a sign in your yard stating as much?

 

I find it interesting that your argument has morphed from claiming that Trump is doing this because of his business interests and now it seems to be just plain opposition to the policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knapplc    19,301

Our doors aren't unlocked. We have good vetting of refugees right now. Pretending that if we allow refugees into America from these seven countries we'll definitely be putting Americans at risk is a fear tactic.

 

I'm not arguing about the business interests with you anymore because your mind's made up.

 

Can you please cite your sources now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QMany    3,006

Sure it may harm some refugees but which country's refugees are you more concerned about than US citizens?

 

Maybe it will accomplish providing time to implement reasonable vetting procedures to stop the open door policy and hopefully provide more safeguards against allowing potential terrorists into our country.

 

If you lived in a high crime area, would you routinely leave your doors unlocked and post a sign in your yard stating as much?

 

wh_blog_refugee_workflow_1125.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zoogs    6,367

I don't really see how stopping new people from becoming U.S. citizens is a particular help or defense for the current citizenry, one of the enduring strengths of which is its diversity, openness, and commitment to freedom and tolerance.

 

I'm curious if you could expand on the open door policy. What "reasonable vetting procedures" did not exist previously?

 

I'm concerned about crime and terrorism, too. But we do a great job of creating our own criminals -- our mass murderers, even our own terrorists. Alienating groups of people within our own body of citizens is to me one of the more risky things that has been happening. That, more than anything, is a threat that need to be vigorously confronted, not with punitive measures but with compassion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Comfortably Numb    5,061

 

Considering his predecessor set goals to allow unprecedented immigration from these potentially troublesome locations, it seems fairly reasonable to me. I mean the government had already instituted travel bans to these countries. Why have those bans not been roundly criticized?

Can you cite your sources for "unprecedented immigration" coming to America from these seven countries? Can you cite your sources for "more Muslims immigrated to America than Christians?"

 

Why should we criticize travel bans to dangerous countries? Why shouldn't we allow refugees safe harbor in America? Are we done being the "Land of the free" and the "Home of the brave?"

 

This immigration ban seems the opposite of brave. It seems like a reaction out of fear.

 

The US government permitted 38,901 Muslim refugees to enter the country in 2016, nearly half of the total number of refugees it permitted into its borders, according to a study by the Pew Research Center.

The figure represents the highest number of Muslim refugees that have been permitted into the US since data on religious affiliation became publicly available in 2002.

It followed increasing escalation in Syria's bloody civil war, as well as continued instability in Iraq and Afghanistan and the collapse of Libya's government.

The US allowed nearly the same number of Christians into the country – 37,521.

Fiscal 2016, which ended on September 30, was the first time in 10 years that the US admitted more Muslims than Christians.

The majority of the Muslim refugees who entered the US last year were from Syria (12,486) and Somalia (9,012).

The rest came from Iraq (7,853), Burma (3,145) - where Muslims are harshly discriminated against - Afghanistan (2,664), and other countries.

The Obama administration aimed to absorb 10,000 Syrian refugees. Instead, it exceeded the goal by 2,486.

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4154332/Trump-ban-immigrants-Syria-6-countries.html#ixzz4WtAICltJ

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knapplc    19,301

So, it wasn't that "his predecessor set goals to allow unprecedented immigration from these potentially troublesome locations," it was that there's a bloody war going on in Syria right now and those people need safe refuge.

 

Accepting refugees fleeing from bloody wars seems like something Jesus would do. Right?

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

 

I guess I'd also like an explanation why it was important to note that "more Muslims immigrated to America than Christians." Why do we care about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knapplc    19,301

Remember when people were optimistic that the Republicans would act as a curb for Trump's tomfoolery? You're not going to believe this but...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"...and Mexico will pay for it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Comfortably Numb    5,061

I don't really see how stopping new people from becoming U.S. citizens is a particular help or defense for the current citizenry, one of the enduring strengths of which is its diversity, openness, and commitment to freedom and tolerance.

 

I'm curious if you could expand on the open door policy. What "reasonable vetting procedures" did not exist previously?

 

I'm concerned about crime and terrorism, too. But we do a great job of creating our own criminals -- our mass murderers, even our own terrorists. Alienating groups of people within our own body of citizens is to me one of the more risky things that has been happening. That, more than anything, is a threat that need to be vigorously confronted, not with punitive measures but with compassion.

I agree with your first sentence.

 

I think the record numbers of immigrants from these troubled countries might indicate that the previous administration was maybe not completely thorough in vetting them, particularly in consideration of world events and the existence of ISIS. I do not know the exact procedures that already take place to prevent potential terrorists from entering our country. I don't think it is out of line for a new administration to want to temporarily halt what was going on before to give them time to review and adjust procedures.

 

I don't think the existence of other undesirable conditions should prevent also dealing with this one. If I'm not mistaken, I believe Trump has also expressed serious concerns about crime and shootings occurring in our own cities. I'm guessing he'll be addressing those issues as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fru    868

Remember when people were optimistic that the Republicans would act as a curb for Trump's tomfoolery? You're not going to believe this but...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"...and Mexico will pay for it."

 

Where's all of this fiscal responsibility I've heard oh so much about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigRedBuster    8,066

 

I don't really see how stopping new people from becoming U.S. citizens is a particular help or defense for the current citizenry, one of the enduring strengths of which is its diversity, openness, and commitment to freedom and tolerance.

 

I'm curious if you could expand on the open door policy. What "reasonable vetting procedures" did not exist previously?

 

I'm concerned about crime and terrorism, too. But we do a great job of creating our own criminals -- our mass murderers, even our own terrorists. Alienating groups of people within our own body of citizens is to me one of the more risky things that has been happening. That, more than anything, is a threat that need to be vigorously confronted, not with punitive measures but with compassion.

I agree with your first sentence.

 

I think the record numbers of immigrants from these troubled countries might indicate that the previous administration was maybe not completely thorough in vetting them, particularly in consideration of world events and the existence of ISIS. I do not know the exact procedures that already take place to prevent potential terrorists from entering our country. I don't think it is out of line for a new administration to want to temporarily halt what was going on before to give them time to review and adjust procedures.

 

I don't the existence of other undesirable conditions should prevent also dealing with this one. If I'm not mistaken, I believe Trump has also expressed serious concerns about crime and shootings occurring in our own cities. I'm guessing he'll be addressing those issues as well.

 

I'm struggling to see the reasoning behind the bolded statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Comfortably Numb    5,061

 

 

I don't really see how stopping new people from becoming U.S. citizens is a particular help or defense for the current citizenry, one of the enduring strengths of which is its diversity, openness, and commitment to freedom and tolerance.

I'm curious if you could expand on the open door policy. What "reasonable vetting procedures" did not exist previously?

I'm concerned about crime and terrorism, too. But we do a great job of creating our own criminals -- our mass murderers, even our own terrorists. Alienating groups of people within our own body of citizens is to me one of the more risky things that has been happening. That, more than anything, is a threat that need to be vigorously confronted, not with punitive measures but with compassion.

 

I agree with your first sentence.

 

I think the record numbers of immigrants from these troubled countries might indicate that the previous administration was maybe not completely thorough in vetting them, particularly in consideration of world events and the existence of ISIS. I do not know the exact procedures that already take place to prevent potential terrorists from entering our country. I don't think it is out of line for a new administration to want to temporarily halt what was going on before to give them time to review and adjust procedures.

 

I don't the existence of other undesirable conditions should prevent also dealing with this one. If I'm not mistaken, I believe Trump has also expressed serious concerns about crime and shootings occurring in our own cities. I'm guessing he'll be addressing those issues as well.

I'm struggling to see the reasoning behind the bolded statement.

So, you see no connection between the prevalence of radical Islamic terrorism and the existence of ISIS within those countries and the increased possibility that people immigrating from those countries may more likely be terrorists themselves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigRedBuster    8,066

 

 

 

I don't really see how stopping new people from becoming U.S. citizens is a particular help or defense for the current citizenry, one of the enduring strengths of which is its diversity, openness, and commitment to freedom and tolerance.

I'm curious if you could expand on the open door policy. What "reasonable vetting procedures" did not exist previously?

I'm concerned about crime and terrorism, too. But we do a great job of creating our own criminals -- our mass murderers, even our own terrorists. Alienating groups of people within our own body of citizens is to me one of the more risky things that has been happening. That, more than anything, is a threat that need to be vigorously confronted, not with punitive measures but with compassion.

I agree with your first sentence.

 

I think the record numbers of immigrants from these troubled countries might indicate that the previous administration was maybe not completely thorough in vetting them, particularly in consideration of world events and the existence of ISIS. I do not know the exact procedures that already take place to prevent potential terrorists from entering our country. I don't think it is out of line for a new administration to want to temporarily halt what was going on before to give them time to review and adjust procedures.

 

I don't the existence of other undesirable conditions should prevent also dealing with this one. If I'm not mistaken, I believe Trump has also expressed serious concerns about crime and shootings occurring in our own cities. I'm guessing he'll be addressing those issues as well.

I'm struggling to see the reasoning behind the bolded statement.

So, you see no connection between the prevalence of radical Islamic terrorism and the existence of ISIS within those countries and the increased possibility that people immigrating from those countries may more likely be terrorists themselves?

 

There are bloody wars in those countries. We tend to bring in refugees from war torn countries. I fail to see how that is proof that we are not completely thorough in vetting them.

 

I'm failing to see how one proves the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ColoNoCoHusker    396

I agree BRB. I am having a real hard with JJ's ED's immigration logic that is essentially "there are problems in the world, therefore Muslims are terrorists".

 

In the entire history of the US, immigration has always come from troubled areas or situations. People do not immigrate here for a lateral move or to be worse-off. They immigrate for a better opportunity. By definition we are always going to have immigration from troubled areas. To say that is a problem is to ignore why people immigrate.

 

If you actually read the vetting done by the US Immigration office, you will see it does not have the holes you say it does. I do not know that any process will be absolutely perfect over any extended period of time. However, we have more terrorist activity being planned by American born citizens, many white Christians, than by Muslim refugees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knapplc    19,301

Are the Syrians coming to America even immigrants? Or are they refugees? Because there's a distinction, and that would throw a wrench into the (weird) claim more Muslims immigrated to America than Christians.

 

I'd also, still, like to know why we're drawing a distinction between religions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zoogs    6,367

I do not know the exact procedures that already take place to prevent potential terrorists from entering our country. I don't think it is out of line for a new administration to want to temporarily halt what was going on before to give them time to review and adjust procedures.

First, the new policy is not a temporary halt for review and adjust. It is an intentional break.

 

Also, the procedures in place were not unknowable, either to citizens or to Trump and his team. In fact, those procedures were part of the political debate that occurred around this policy.

 

I don't think the existence of other undesirable conditions should prevent also dealing with this one. If I'm not mistaken, I believe Trump has also expressed serious concerns about crime and shootings occurring in our own cities. I'm guessing he'll be addressing those issues as well.

My problem with this is that these are not separate problems; this ban has been presented as a way to address the "crime/terrorism threat" problem. My argument is that it does not do so. It is also merely reflective of the other approaches Trump has and will take, which I find similarly problematic. Otherwise, I agree that issues can be tackled in parallel.

 

I appreciate how cogently you're making all your points by the way, ED :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ColoNoCoHusker    396

Are the Syrians coming to America even immigrants? Or are they refugees? Because there's a distinction, and that would throw a wrench into the (weird) claim more Muslims immigrated to America than Christians.

 

I'd also, still, like to know why we're drawing a distinction between religions.

 

The US Immigration dept considers Refugee status as a specific subset of Immigrants. It further identifies Asylum status as a subset of Refugee status. These are Humanitarian classifications different than standard immigration but they roll-up into the broader immigration numbers. I think you are splitting a pretty fine hair (although I agree with your premise & reason for doing so).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knapplc    19,301

 

Are the Syrians coming to America even immigrants? Or are they refugees? Because there's a distinction, and that would throw a wrench into the (weird) claim more Muslims immigrated to America than Christians.

 

I'd also, still, like to know why we're drawing a distinction between religions.

The US Immigration considers Refugee status as a specific subset of Immigrants. It further identifies Asylum status as a subset of Refugee status. These are Humanitarian classifications different than standard immigration but they roll-up into the broader immigration numbers. I think you are splitting a pretty fine hair (although I agree with your premise & reason for doing so).

 

I did not know that about the definitions.

 

I would imagine there will be a percentage of Syrians who stay in America, since their old lives are perhaps shattered beyond repair. There will be a lot of them who go home, though - Syria was a pretty amazing country before this war.

 

That's where I see a difference between refugees and immigrants. Immigrants intentionally move here to stay. Refugees are, by nature, intentionally temporary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ColoNoCoHusker    396

 

 

Are the Syrians coming to America even immigrants? Or are they refugees? Because there's a distinction, and that would throw a wrench into the (weird) claim more Muslims immigrated to America than Christians.

 

I'd also, still, like to know why we're drawing a distinction between religions.

The US Immigration considers Refugee status as a specific subset of Immigrants. It further identifies Asylum status as a subset of Refugee status. These are Humanitarian classifications different than standard immigration but they roll-up into the broader immigration numbers. I think you are splitting a pretty fine hair (although I agree with your premise & reason for doing so).

 

I did not know that about the definitions.

 

I would imagine there will be a percentage of Syrians who stay in America, since their old lives are perhaps shattered beyond repair. There will be a lot of them who go home, though - Syria was a pretty amazing country before this war.

 

That's where I see a difference between refugees and immigrants. Immigrants intentionally move here to stay. Refugees are, by nature, intentionally temporary.

 

 

Absolutely, but the US Immigration Office vets all refugee/asylum seekers according to the immigration process outlined earlier. The assumption is they will need to contribute, earn a living, and not be a threat whether they stay & pursue citizenship or not. The only real loophole is vetting for individuals with Temporary Protected Status & asylum status occur while the person is possibly already in the US (or at least outside their home country). Refugees & other immigrants the vetting occurs before they arrive on US soil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Comfortably Numb    5,061

Look ya'll need to stop jumping to conclusions about what my opinion must mean.

I am simply saying that I think it is logical and good policy to review the procedures that are in place. Placing a TEMPORARY ban on immigration from these countries is not the end of the American way and not some total hair-brained move. I think it is wise to ascertain if our vetting is thorough enough and if there are reasonable safeguards in place. That is all. I am not proposing that Muslims immigration be banned forever or that Muslims are the only problem. Using the same logic as many seem to be using, should I assume that you would never review policy or make adjustments because we must be dong everything right already?

 

Ask yourselves a few questions. Where would you feel safer walking down the street- In a small town in Nebraska or in some crime infested slum in an inner city? Why is that? Because you know the potential for a crime is higher in one area than the other. Does that logical conclusion not extend to where terrorists are known to be in higher concentrations? Here's another one- you're going through security at the airport and everyone in line appears to be of Mideastern heritage. Security is obviously overwhelmed and they begin just waiving people through the line. You get on your plane and again your fellow passengers appear to be predominately Mideastern. How comfortable are you? You are lying if you claim that would not influence your feelings of safety on that flight. Who should TPA be more concerned about- The silver haired grandmother in a wheelchair or the 30 year old guy that looks like the prototypical terrorist? You can call that profiling or xenophobia all day long but it is still logical based on who historically has committed terrorist acts on airplanes. You can claim that is not the American way but since when does our way have to avoid the laws of probability and common sense.

 

There, that ought to get things fired up for awhile. I've got some actual work to get done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knapplc    19,301

Ask yourselves a few questions. Where would you feel safer walking down the street- In a small town in Nebraska or in some crime infested slum in an inner city?

Quick question on this scenario - what color is my skin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knapplc    19,301

Getting back to my point on Trump's motives and possible ethics violations.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ColoNoCoHusker    396

I am simply saying that I think it is logical and good policy to review the procedures that are in place. Placing a TEMPORARY ban on immigration from these countries is not the end of the American way and not some total hair-brained move. I think it is wise to ascertain if our vetting is thorough enough and if there are reasonable safeguards in place.

 

 

Applying this logic to your business: I am going audit the books of your business. It's good practice and every company should do it. I am going to shut down your business while I ascertain whether or not your business and accounting practices follow acceptable and required methodologies.

 

My issue with your logic is you have made no effort to know the process in place under the previous administration. You assume that because Muslims from bad areas immigrate to this country that our process is NOT constantly reviewed, you also assume it must bad; and you assume this review requires a ban on immigration to determine its efficacy.

 

I think it's bad form and flawed on your part, as well as a disingenuous effort to remain ignorant on the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Comfortably Numb    5,061

Are the Syrians coming to America even immigrants? Or are they refugees? Because there's a distinction, and that would throw a wrench into the (weird) claim more Muslims immigrated to America than Christians.

 

I'd also, still, like to know why we're drawing a distinction between religions.

My question would be how do we know who they are if we don't have proper vetting procedures in place. How do we determine if they are an innocent displaced refugee or a person using that as cover to come here and do horrible things? I don't claim to know the answers of how we currently determine this or what procedures are undertaken but I'm sure not opposed to reviewing them and making the process more stringent if required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Comfortably Numb    5,061

 

I am simply saying that I think it is logical and good policy to review the procedures that are in place. Placing a TEMPORARY ban on immigration from these countries is not the end of the American way and not some total hair-brained move. I think it is wise to ascertain if our vetting is thorough enough and if there are reasonable safeguards in place.

 

 

Applying this logic to your business: I am going audit the books of your business. It's good practice and every company should do it. I am going to shut down your business while I ascertain whether or not your business and accounting practices follow acceptable and required methodologies.

 

My issue with your logic is you have made no effort to know the process in place under the previous administration. You assume that because Muslims from bad areas immigrate to this country that our process is NOT constantly reviewed, you also assume it must bad; and you assume this review requires a ban on immigration to determine its efficacy.

 

I think it's bad form and flawed on your part, as well as a disingenuous effort to remain ignorant on the situation.

 

I'm not making the assumption that it is not constantly reviewed. I'm sorry if I have not made the effort to know all the processes of all our federal government. Apparently you have from that position on your high horse. At least we all know where to come ask questions when knowledge of our federal government's inner workings are needed. Thanks for volunteering your infinite expertise in all areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ColoNoCoHusker    396

 

 

I am simply saying that I think it is logical and good policy to review the procedures that are in place. Placing a TEMPORARY ban on immigration from these countries is not the end of the American way and not some total hair-brained move. I think it is wise to ascertain if our vetting is thorough enough and if there are reasonable safeguards in place.

 

 

Applying this logic to your business: I am going audit the books of your business. It's good practice and every company should do it. I am going to shut down your business while I ascertain whether or not your business and accounting practices follow acceptable and required methodologies.

 

My issue with your logic is you have made no effort to know the process in place under the previous administration. You assume that because Muslims from bad areas immigrate to this country that our process is NOT constantly reviewed, you also assume it must bad; and you assume this review requires a ban on immigration to determine its efficacy.

 

I think it's bad form and flawed on your part, as well as a disingenuous effort to remain ignorant on the situation.

 

I'm not making the assumption that it is not constantly reviewed. I'm sorry if I have not made the effort to know all the processes of all our federal government. Apparently you have from that position on your high horse. At least we all know where to come ask questions when knowledge of our federal government's inner workings are needed. Thanks for volunteering your infinite expertise in all areas.

 

 

I just did basic research that you seem unwilling to do on a topic that you consider to be important. I don't see the snarky sarcasm being necessary but that has become a common theme of yours lately when your ignorance is questioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zoogs    6,367

It's odd that you pose so many questions as if they are unanswerable. This thread isn't the first time the process has been outlined by length, not by experts, but by people who have looked it up.

 

So, continued criticism of the status quo should be directed specifically at that process, and not rely on questions as supporting evidence. Otherwise, it's having a firm stance while also having no interest in supporting it. Which makes it fair to ask, why so firm on the stance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigRedBuster    8,066

Look ya'll need to stop jumping to conclusions about what my opinion must mean.

I am simply saying that I think it is logical and good policy to review the procedures that are in place. Placing a TEMPORARY ban on immigration from these countries is not the end of the American way and not some total hair-brained move. I think it is wise to ascertain if our vetting is thorough enough and if there are reasonable safeguards in place. That is all. I am not proposing that Muslims immigration be banned forever or that Muslims are the only problem. Using the same logic as many seem to be using, should I assume that you would never review policy or make adjustments because we must be dong everything right already?

 

Ask yourselves a few questions. Where would you feel safer walking down the street- In a small town in Nebraska or in some crime infested slum in an inner city? Why is that? Because you know the potential for a crime is higher in one area than the other. Does that logical conclusion not extend to where terrorists are known to be in higher concentrations? Here's another one- you're going through security at the airport and everyone in line appears to be of Mideastern heritage. Security is obviously overwhelmed and they begin just waiving people through the line. You get on your plane and again your fellow passengers appear to be predominately Mideastern. How comfortable are you? You are lying if you claim that would not influence your feelings of safety on that flight. Who should TPA be more concerned about- The silver haired grandmother in a wheelchair or the 30 year old guy that looks like the prototypical terrorist? You can call that profiling or xenophobia all day long but it is still logical based on who historically has committed terrorist acts on airplanes. You can claim that is not the American way but since when does our way have to avoid the laws of probability and common sense.

 

There, that ought to get things fired up for awhile. I've got some actual work to get done.

I'm trying not to jump to conclusions. That's why I asked my questions.

 

About the bolded questions in your post. The real question here that would pertain to the discussion is, if you lived in a nice white suburb of Chicago and a black family from inner city moved in next door, would you feel unsafe and should there be a way to ban that family from moving in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Comfortably Numb    5,061

 

Ask yourselves a few questions. Where would you feel safer walking down the street- In a small town in Nebraska or in some crime infested slum in an inner city?

Quick question on this scenario - what color is my skin?

 

Exactly. It is subjective and subject to many factors. I don't see where it discounts the point being made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lil' Red    308

 

Are the Syrians coming to America even immigrants? Or are they refugees? Because there's a distinction, and that would throw a wrench into the (weird) claim more Muslims immigrated to America than Christians.

 

I'd also, still, like to know why we're drawing a distinction between religions.

My question would be how do we know who they are if we don't have proper vetting procedures in place. How do we determine if they are an innocent displaced refugee or a person using that as cover to come here and do horrible things? I don't claim to know the answers of how we currently determine this or what procedures are undertaken but I'm sure not opposed to reviewing them and making the process more stringent if required.

Did you read QMany's post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Comfortably Numb    5,061

 

 

 

I am simply saying that I think it is logical and good policy to review the procedures that are in place. Placing a TEMPORARY ban on immigration from these countries is not the end of the American way and not some total hair-brained move. I think it is wise to ascertain if our vetting is thorough enough and if there are reasonable safeguards in place.

 

 

Applying this logic to your business: I am going audit the books of your business. It's good practice and every company should do it. I am going to shut down your business while I ascertain whether or not your business and accounting practices follow acceptable and required methodologies.

 

My issue with your logic is you have made no effort to know the process in place under the previous administration. You assume that because Muslims from bad areas immigrate to this country that our process is NOT constantly reviewed, you also assume it must bad; and you assume this review requires a ban on immigration to determine its efficacy.

 

I think it's bad form and flawed on your part, as well as a disingenuous effort to remain ignorant on the situation.

 

I'm not making the assumption that it is not constantly reviewed. I'm sorry if I have not made the effort to know all the processes of all our federal government. Apparently you have from that position on your high horse. At least we all know where to come ask questions when knowledge of our federal government's inner workings are needed. Thanks for volunteering your infinite expertise in all areas.

 

 

I just did basic research that you seem unwilling to do on a topic that you consider to be important. I don't see the snarky sarcasm being necessary but that has become a common theme of yours lately when your ignorance is questioned.

 

Huh, imagine that, I got snarky when called ignorant. All I've done is try to provide another point of view and some reasonable insight into why some of these things appear somewhat logical from outside the bash everything Trump circle jerk. Have fun in your little echo chamber. I'm out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Comfortably Numb    5,061

 

 

Are the Syrians coming to America even immigrants? Or are they refugees? Because there's a distinction, and that would throw a wrench into the (weird) claim more Muslims immigrated to America than Christians.

 

I'd also, still, like to know why we're drawing a distinction between religions.

My question would be how do we know who they are if we don't have proper vetting procedures in place. How do we determine if they are an innocent displaced refugee or a person using that as cover to come here and do horrible things? I don't claim to know the answers of how we currently determine this or what procedures are undertaken but I'm sure not opposed to reviewing them and making the process more stringent if required.

Did you read QMany's post?

 

No. I've been busy replying to all these other posts while also trying to get some actual work done.

I see it now and will read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knapplc    19,301

Huh, imagine that, I got snarky when called ignorant. All I've done is try to provide another point of view and some reasonable insight into why some of these things appear somewhat logical from outside the bash everything Trump circle jerk. Have fun in your little echo chamber. I'm out.

When were you called ignorant? I'm reasonably certain a good case could be made that you were being snarky before that. And don't worry, we all get snarky sometimes, even zoogs on rare occasions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ColoNoCoHusker    396

 

 

 

 

I am simply saying that I think it is logical and good policy to review the procedures that are in place. Placing a TEMPORARY ban on immigration from these countries is not the end of the American way and not some total hair-brained move. I think it is wise to ascertain if our vetting is thorough enough and if there are reasonable safeguards in place.

 

 

Applying this logic to your business: I am going audit the books of your business. It's good practice and every company should do it. I am going to shut down your business while I ascertain whether or not your business and accounting practices follow acceptable and required methodologies.

 

My issue with your logic is you have made no effort to know the process in place under the previous administration. You assume that because Muslims from bad areas immigrate to this country that our process is NOT constantly reviewed, you also assume it must bad; and you assume this review requires a ban on immigration to determine its efficacy.

 

I think it's bad form and flawed on your part, as well as a disingenuous effort to remain ignorant on the situation.

 

I'm not making the assumption that it is not constantly reviewed. I'm sorry if I have not made the effort to know all the processes of all our federal government. Apparently you have from that position on your high horse. At least we all know where to come ask questions when knowledge of our federal government's inner workings are needed. Thanks for volunteering your infinite expertise in all areas.

 

 

I just did basic research that you seem unwilling to do on a topic that you consider to be important. I don't see the snarky sarcasm being necessary but that has become a common theme of yours lately when your ignorance is questioned.

 

Huh, imagine that, I got snarky when called ignorant. All I've done is try to provide another point of view and some reasonable insight into why some of these things appear somewhat logical from outside the bash everything Trump circle jerk. Have fun in your little echo chamber. I'm out.

 

 

You asked questions, they were answered with references provided, you ignored the information and then throw a Trumper tantrum when called out in the least degree. Sounds like I'm not the one in the echo chamber. Thank you again for confirming that while you feign otherwise, you'd rather deal in "alternative facts" than discuss possible truths. Enjoy your bliss...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
commando    1,626

can any trump supporters explain how this would work out for me? i want to build a new fence around my yard and have my neighbor pay for it. do i have to send them the bill or does my contractor send it to them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zoogs    6,367

'snarky' is my middle name :D

 

can any trump supporters explain how this would work out for me? i want to build a new fence around my yard and have my neighbor pay for it. do i have to send them the bill or does my contractor send it to them?

You bully and extort them. Get your own. Our new motto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lil' Red    308

can any trump supporters explain how this would work out for me? i want to build a new fence around my yard and have my neighbor pay for it. do i have to send them the bill or does my contractor send it to them?

 

Trump provided a blueprint for how to do that as well:

 

President-elect Donald J. Trump has already built a wall — not on the border with Mexico, but on the border of his exclusive golf course in northeastern Scotland, blocking the sea view of local residents who refused to sell their homes.

 

And then he sent them the bill.

 

David and Moira Milne had already been threatened with legal action by Mr. Trump’s lawyers, who claimed that a corner of their garage belonged to him, when they came home from work one day to find his staff building a fence around their garden. Two rows of grown trees went up next, blocking the view. Their water and electricity lines were temporarily cut. And then a bill for about $3,500 arrived in the mail, which, Mr. Milne said, went straight into the trash.

Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NM11046    2,042

Trying to build on the street walking/airport security scenarios. I'm sure this isn't a perfect analogy, but go with it:

 

Let's say you're boarding a plane from Ireland. You are one of many pastey, white guys/gals boarding a plane. All are getting the same attention (or lack of attention). Should you be worried as a third of Irishmen are members of the IRA, a known paramilitary republic who has been know to target and kill with bombs and etc.? Should the US ban all immigrants of Irish descent from coming to the US? Are they less scary because they look like us? Because they practice a religion that we're familiar with?

 

The whole idea of blaming an entire religion or nationality for the acts of a few renegades sits sourly with me. We are better than this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dudeguyy    3,490

 

can any trump supporters explain how this would work out for me? i want to build a new fence around my yard and have my neighbor pay for it. do i have to send them the bill or does my contractor send it to them?

 

Trump provided a blueprint for how to do that as well:

 

President-elect Donald J. Trump has already built a wall — not on the border with Mexico, but on the border of his exclusive golf course in northeastern Scotland, blocking the sea view of local residents who refused to sell their homes.

 

And then he sent them the bill.

 

David and Moira Milne had already been threatened with legal action by Mr. Trump’s lawyers, who claimed that a corner of their garage belonged to him, when they came home from work one day to find his staff building a fence around their garden. Two rows of grown trees went up next, blocking the view. Their water and electricity lines were temporarily cut. And then a bill for about $3,500 arrived in the mail, which, Mr. Milne said, went straight into the trash.

Link

 

 

This has always been Trump's MO when it comes to his legal strategy.

 

Being born into such immense wealth makes it hard for others to challenge him. If he decides to pull crap like this, he can, because the people he's suing aren't going to have the resources to fight him in court. He could just bleed them dry.

 

If he does get caught with his hand in the cookie jar, like Trump University, he just winds up settling. Not because he WANTS to (as he claims), but because he's wrong. The money doesn't matter and it prevents the case from getting to discovery, which would probably destroy him

Here's hoping this Emoluments lawsuit or the defamation one from the Apprentice actress with Gloria Allred actually goes to trial. I'd like to see this guy finally exposed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dudeguyy    3,490

I think it is useful to examine how many folks wound up feeling the same way to Señor ED (still not used to you being JJ man!) does about immigration. JJ, I don't know your how your feelings on this subject evolved, so I'm not accusing you of falling for this by any stretch. But a heck of a lot of people did.

 

A "Big Lie" is a propaganda technique dating back, ironically, to Hitler himself in Main Kampf.

Basically, if you say something over and over and over again, people begin to think it's true. It doesn't matter if it's completely devoid of facts, and having a strong emotional component to what you're saying and a platform like Trump's helps.

 

He suckered a lot of people into believing this nonsense that "we have no way of vetting these people" or "our borders are open and people are just pouring in" or whatever else it is now. I understand the argument for tightening up immigration policies, though I disagree with it. But this guy got millions of people to believe we're in eminent dangerous from nonexistent vetting procedures, and he did it through a fear-laden lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Landlord    7,848

I am simply saying that I think it is logical and good policy to review the procedures that are in place. Placing a TEMPORARY ban on immigration from these countries is not the end of the American way and not some total hair-brained move. I think it is wise to ascertain if our vetting is thorough enough and if there are reasonable safeguards in place.

 

 

Generally, in the case of businesses or organizations, you only conduct self-review like that in response to a lack of efficiency or success. You don't really spend the energy to ascertain whether a certain policy could be operating better if that policy is already at ~99% success rate.

 

Out of the near 800,000 refugees we have taken in since 9/11, 3 have been charged with terrorist-related activities.

 

 

 

 

JJ, you're a reasonable person, but I don't think you're thinking this one through. If a temporary ban on Syrian immigration is a good idea in order to review our procedures, then why not temporary marshall law in Chicago and St. Louis, why not a temporary ban on handguns, temporary ban on Christian gatherings as right-wing religious extremists kill twice as many Americans as muslim terrorists?

 

 

 

 

“Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×