Immigration Ban

[TAKODA]

 

 

 

Sorry for potential typos but replying from mobile while traveling.

Knapp, Zoogs, anyone?

How is it that the citizens of the US, should feel safe regarding the refugee issues, when there are those countries who have like minded Muslim beliefs, that want no part of allowing these same refugees to stake a claim in their country. My understanding regarding Saudi is, those allowed in are already employed or are to be employed (labor coverage), where they are vetted in depth?

Edit ~ should we do less than what they have instituted?

 

 

Have you examined the history between whatever country you're talking about and Syria? Maybe there's bad blood between them dating back a few centuries. There are 100 reasons why one of those countries may not want Syrian refugees that has nothing to do with safety.

 

This, essentially, is a guilty-until-proven-innocent scenario. These Syrians are suspected of plotting harm to Americans without having been shown to.

 

I thought America was better than that.

Better because we turn the other cheek? I recognize 9-11 was a while ago but not sure that had we

not been proactive after Pearl Harbor, we wouldn't be in a different situation today! You can say and show all you want about the other 12995 admitted refugees not doing what the few did on 9-11, but if your job was to protect the citizens of your state, city or country, wouldn't you want a solid starting point as a law enforcement agent, knowing that those you stop on the streets, have been sufficiently vetted to insure you are not the agent who makes a bad decision, because of the massive publicized profiles?

There's a lot of chaotic spaghetti-flinging going on here. It's like we're just trying to see what sticks.

 

"Turned the other cheek." From what? 9/11 wasn't perpetrated by Syrians.

 

What does Pearl Harbor have to do with the modern terror threat?

 

We do have a solid starting point. Our vetting process is stringent. It's been posted here half a dozen times, and if you think it's not stringent enough, specifically say where it can/should be beefed up.

 

God forbid that we, as a country, should blame a vetting agent personally if someone they should have flagged gets through. Everyone makes mistakes. Kids still get hurt on their bikes no matter how many pads or helmets we make them wear.

Spaghetti hua?

 

Pearl Harbor, referencing being pro active to serve our countries best interest!

 

9-11, while maybe not Syrian, showing non US or those not vetted enough can an will inflict carnage on our people!

 

Agents making mistakes? Yep, happens more than you think! Unfortunately, it's tougher to knock on that door of the nearest relatives to express the profound sorrow that it could have been avoided, had we taken 1 additional step!

[knapplc]

Spaghetti hua?

 

Pearl Harbor, referencing being pro active to serve our countries best interest!

 

9-11, while maybe not Syrian, showing non US or those not vetted enough can an will inflict carnage on our people!

 

Agents making mistakes? Yep, happens more than you think! Unfortunately, it's tougher to knock on that door of the nearest relatives to express the profound sorrow that it could have been avoided, had we taken 1 additional step!

Yep, spaghetti.

 

You cannot guarantee safety. We already have reasonable precautions in place.

 

All this is doing is hurting innocent people. We claim to be better than this.

[Oade]

Okay so,

 

For 16 years we've been taking personal items out of burning homes (am I getting the analogy right thus far?). For 16 years, those items haven't caused fires here, because we've done a really good job of making sure that the items aren't on fire beforehand.

 

But now, for whatever reason, we're scared that the items are on fire we just can't see it, so the solution is to just let the whole thing burn down, and not try to save any prized possessions, so we can take a look at whether or not we aren't doing enough to keep the fire out of our homes, despite our homes never catching on fire even though we continuously bring in items from other homes that were burning...

 

 

 

?

 

Is it an apples to apples comparison though?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we currently only have less than 1000 troops deployed in Syria, and are not in control of the war there.

 

Compared to hundreds of thousands of troops that have been in Afghanistan and Iraq over the past two decades.... Did we accept Refugees at the rate of 13,000 per year from those countries before gaining control of those wars? (serious question)

 

To say that our procedures have not resulted in war-like attacks here is true, but to say that that same exact can be applied to Syria directly is debatable. These are different militaries, different countries, and at no point in the past 16 years have we had control of the situation in Syria, unlike what we've experienced/developed with Afghanistan and Iraq.

[TAKODA]

So let me get the picture your painting! Why fix what is not broken?

 

You saying this because you have first hand knowledge of our process and know we are doing everything possible to vet any incoming refugee or non-US citizen?

 

As a parallel, less serious however, Nebraska only averages 7 points a game. No need to improve on that side of the ball, just have a better D!

 

Got it!

[TAKODA]

So let me get the picture your painting! Why fix what is not broken?

 

You saying this because you have first hand knowledge of our process and know we are doing everything possible to vet any incoming refugee or non-US citizen?

 

As a parallel, less serious however, Nebraska only averages 7 points a game. No need to improve on that side of the ball, just have a better D!

 

Got it!

[Moiraine]

Feeling safe is not in the least bit important if it comes from irrational fears not based on facts.

 

People feel unsafe because they hear about crimes on TV, but the crime rate has been dropping for years now. My mom always talked in the 90s about how "there is more crime now" but the data didn't back her up.

 

Feeling safe doesn't matter. Actual safety does. Chances are a lot of people would feel more safe if they turned off the TV than they would if they bought a gun. Does that mean getting rid of the TV makes them safer? No. It just means they aren't hearing about isolated, rare incidents of crime. Likewise having a TV doesn't make them less safe in reality.

[knapplc]

So let me get the picture your painting! Why fix what is not broken?

 

You saying this because you have first hand knowledge of our process and know we are doing everything possible to vet any incoming refugee or non-US citizen?

 

As a parallel, less serious however, Nebraska only averages 7 points a game. No need to improve on that side of the ball, just have a better D!

 

Got it!

That's not even a good attempt at a straw man. C'mon.

[Moiraine]

So let me get the picture your painting! Why fix what is not broken?

 

You saying this because you have first hand knowledge of our process and know we are doing everything possible to vet any incoming refugee or non-US citizen?

 

As a parallel, less serious however, Nebraska only averages 7 points a game. No need to improve on that side of the ball, just have a better D!

 

Got it!

That's a pretty terrible analogy. Here's my own attempt.

 

Let's say Nebraska shuts out every team they play next fall. But Iowa manages a couple field goal attempts and gains 300 yards on us.

 

Should we do something ridiculously stupid, like fire Diaco or refuse to play Iowa?

 

Also, Iowa gives us 10% of their players every year just to be nice and many of them start for us.

[teachercd]

 

So let me get the picture your painting! Why fix what is not broken?

You saying this because you have first hand knowledge of our process and know we are doing everything possible to vet any incoming refugee or non-US citizen?

As a parallel, less serious however, Nebraska only averages 7 points a game. No need to improve on that side of the ball, just have a better D!

Got it!

That's a pretty terrible analogy. Here's my own attempt.

Let's say Nebraska shuts out every team they play next fall. But Iowa manages a couple field goal attempts and gains 300 yards on us.

Should we do something ridiculously stupid, like fire Diaco or refuse to play Iowa?

As a coach...you would try to fix the problem and figure out what went wrong vs Iowa.

[TAKODA]

Look Knapp, I am not saying we should ban everyone that even remotely resembles a Muslim. That's not who I am!

 

However, the steps taken by the past administration that fulfilled their vetting requirements are obviously not in line with the current administrations views. Changing of the hairs, new tactics (good or bad) can't be avoided. Just like I am sure El Diaco will not run things the same as Banker. The bottom line is improving the process, if it can be improved upon! No less, no more. It will come out in the wash (good or bad).

 

We have the governmental processes to insure no one egregiously over steps their authority, and if that don't work, well, we have had civil wars before. Guess Turkey just showed us it not out of the question!

[TAKODA]

 

So let me get the picture your painting! Why fix what is not broken?

You saying this because you have first hand knowledge of our process and know we are doing everything possible to vet any incoming refugee or non-US citizen?

As a parallel, less serious however, Nebraska only averages 7 points a game. No need to improve on that side of the ball, just have a better D!

Got it!

That's a pretty terrible analogy. Here's my own attempt.

Let's say Nebraska shuts out every team they play next fall. But Iowa manages a couple field goal attempts and gains 300 yards on us.

Should we do something ridiculously stupid, like fire Diaco or refuse to play Iowa?

Also, Iowa gives us 10% of their players every year just to be nice and many of them start for us.

Ha, you asking that Q on this board? LOL, people want coaches fired for past records being insufficient for their taste!

[Moiraine]

 

 

So let me get the picture your painting! Why fix what is not broken?

You saying this because you have first hand knowledge of our process and know we are doing everything possible to vet any incoming refugee or non-US citizen?

As a parallel, less serious however, Nebraska only averages 7 points a game. No need to improve on that side of the ball, just have a better D!

Got it!

That's a pretty terrible analogy. Here's my own attempt.

Let's say Nebraska shuts out every team they play next fall. But Iowa manages a couple field goal attempts and gains 300 yards on us.

Should we do something ridiculously stupid, like fire Diaco or refuse to play Iowa?

Also, Iowa gives us 10% of their players every year just to be nice and many of them start for us.

Ha, you asking that Q on this board? LOL, people want coaches fired for past records being insufficient for their taste!

That's not even remotely similar to the scenario I just posted. We shut out every. single. team.

[knapplc]

Look Knapp, I am not saying we should ban everyone that even remotely resembles a Muslim. That's not who I am!

 

However, the steps taken by the past administration that fulfilled their vetting requirements are obviously not in line with the current administrations views. Changing of the hairs, new tactics (good or bad) can't be avoided. Just like I am sure El Diaco will not run things the same as Banker. The bottom line is improving the process, if it can be improved upon! No less, no more. It will come out in the wash (good or bad).

 

We have the governmental processes to insure no one egregiously over steps their authority, and if that don't work, well, we have had civil wars before. Guess Turkey just showed us it not out of the question!

You're not saying it, but Trump's advisor Bannon is. Guess who wrote that EO? Bannon. It is not about "improving the process." When something is running at >99% efficiency a simple review is all that's necessary. We do not have to completely shut it down while reviewing it.

 

When the person making the policy overtly hates the people he's making policy for, it's going to cause problems. Defending a known racist like Bannon is beneath Americans. We have to try and be better than that.

 

The steps Obama's administration took are irrelevant when confronted with the reality of Bannon's racism.

[Lil' Red]

I don't understand why some want absolute safety when it comes to immigrants/refugees but are willing to accept a much greater level of risk in other aspects of their lives. 150,000 people die every year due to lung cancer, 30,000 die in gun related deaths, and 10,000 die due to drunk driving. Why not ban cigarettes, guns, and alcohol? Or at least temporarily ban them until we can implement new measures to deal with them?

[zoogs]

I'd like to add that those "governmental processes" only continue to exist when there is an informed citizenry that puts political pressure on their representatives to uphold the norms of authority.

 

Even a casual observation of Team Trump should reveal that they are hell bent on demolishing norms and boundaries.