Immigration Ban

[Oade]

 

I would say that the opposition stemmed from both sides of the aisle - from both sides hoping to avoid committing to another endless war.

Opposition to refugees?

 

We will have allowed more Syrians in, and possibly better screened, by the end of the year than all but maybe one year of Obama's tenure combined. Why protest on end about that?

You're attempting to argue that the Trump administration will represent a positive development in the amount of Syrian refugees taken in. This is an incredible argument.

 

You know that Obama ramped up the refugee influx and was eager to increase it even more dramatically. You know where the opposition has come from. You know what Trump campaigned on and what he is doing now.

 

 

Ha, not opposition to refugees, opposition "from both sides hoping to avoid committing to another endless war."

[Fru]

Fru, you speaking for yourself, from your vantage point and from your clean wholesome lifestyle right? Or are you speaking in terms of why the current President of our United States brought this forth?

 

Because I know you sure and the heck are not looking from my Lens, because if you were, you would be able to relate, as to what a better vetting process might mean to those, who are tasked with making sure you are able to count sheep when you go to sleep!

 

I'm just going off the stats. 0 murders from terrorists posing as refugees since 9/11.

 

But if putting a 5 year old girl in handcuffs is what it takes for you to feel safe, then hey, I guess we have the right occupant for the Oval Office!

[Fru]

[commando]

alternative daycare

[Danny Bateman]

What about our Vetting process is different or better than European countries? Is it that our process is truly better, or is it that until a year ago we didn't take Refugees in at a comparable rate to Europe?

 

Just my two cents... maybe a different approach would help with this. I know I personally digest a point a lot better when I see it some kind of chart or graphic, so... let's just take a numbers based approach on this.

 

I pulled this info straight off Wikipedia. I included only attacks with strong connections to radical Islamic motives (i.e., there were a few with few details that I left out)

 

Radical Islamic Terrorist Attacks in Europe since start of Syrian Civil War in 2011:

 

 

Totals:

 

Injured: 820 Deaths: 291 (including 14 perps)

 

Radical Islamic Terrorist Attacks in the US since start of the Syrian Civil War in 2011:

 

Had to add this up manually - the list was much more detailed and would have made too long a list. However, I still added all known radical Islamic terrorist attacks, with the exception of the Boston Marathon bombings, because they had immigrated to the US in 2000s and thus not relevant to the immigration ban.

 

You'll have to trust me, but I swear I didn't fudge the numbers.

 

Totals:

 

Injured: 148 (including 2 perps) Deaths: 83 (including 10 perps) [With Boston included: Injured: 429 (3 perps) Dead: 89 (11 perps)]

 

By comparison:

 

Right-Wing Extremist Attacks since 2011:

 

Injured: 14 Deaths: 22 (including 1 perp)

 

As others have said, the travel ban would've prevented 0 of these deaths if implemented on the 7 chosen countries. This is strictly showing the radical Islamic attack stats here compared to Europe.

 

As you can see, the thing that that is better about our system is that by sheer numbers, it appears to be more effective.

 

One could argue a larger influx of refugees like we had in 2016 could lead to more risk. We'll have to wait and see.

[zoogs]

If so, maybe there needs to be more emphasis looking inwardly. I believe in strong vetting and I think this EO will eventually go back to a normal routine, but what are we doing about vetting citizens who leave the country to go to a terrorist friendly nation and come back radicalized, who have mental issues and yet can buy a gun, etc.

Great point. What I want to ask is what are we doing to come together as a diverse society and avoid alienating people to the point where segments of America who should be regarding themselves as American first feel instead outcast and warred upon.

[Atbone95]

I vote that we change the name of this thread. I'm serious. It is a false title and perpetuates issues that don't need to be.

 

It is not a ban, it is a 90-day suspension.

 

I'm being serious.

[TAKODA]

Really Fru,

 

You got it. I am the bad guy here, and its my life long dreams to have to enocounter the unthinkable involving a child being used as a pawn for others motives. Being detached from emotions (ahh, how cute, warm & fuzzies) is required to insure you get home safe everyday. Nah, you don't get it and never will. Go watch real world event on Disney channel. It's all good!

 

Just so you don't go to bed tonight thinking it isn't something that happens

 

 

On Friday last week, a police station was bombed by a child suicide bomber in Midan neighborhood of Damascus, the Syrian state-run Ikhbariya news channel reported. According to the Reuters news agency, citing an unnamed witness in the area of the blast, a young girl of about nine years of age entered the police station and, after asking to go to the toilet, blew herself up. As it was reported, the bomb on the child might have been detonated remotely by someone else, and the child was just used.

 

Later, a video, showing consequences of the explosion and the body of the child after the bombing, was published online by the Ruptly video news agency.

 

Need more, go review that in which you mock!

 

Will it happen in the US?

 

Can we 100% eliminate this from happening here on our soil? Nothing is for certain!

[Landlord]

I vote that we change the name of this thread. I'm serious. It is a false title and perpetuates issues that don't need to be.

 

It is not a ban, it is a 90-day suspension.

 

I'm being serious.

 

 

 

...except for Syria. The place causing stuff like this:

 

 

 

[Lil' Red]

I vote that we change the name of this thread. I'm serious. It is a false title and perpetuates issues that don't need to be.

 

It is not a ban, it is a 90-day suspension.

 

I'm being serious.

Trump himself calls it a ban. Bans can be temporary.

 

[Fru]

Really Fru,

You got it. I am the bad guy here, and its my life long dreams to have to enocounter the unthinkable involving a child being used as a pawn for others motives. Being detached from emotions (ahh, how cute, warm & fuzzies) is required to insure you get home safe everyday. Nah, you don't get it and never will. Go watch real world event on Disney channel. It's all good!

Just so you don't go to bed tonight thinking it isn't something that happens

On Friday last week, a police station was bombed by a child suicide bomber in Midan neighborhood of Damascus, the Syrian state-run Ikhbariya news channel reported. According to the Reuters news agency, citing an unnamed witness in the area of the blast, a young girl of about nine years of age entered the police station and, after asking to go to the toilet, blew herself up. As it was reported, the bomb on the child might have been detonated remotely by someone else, and the child was just used.

Later, a video, showing consequences of the explosion and the body of the child after the bombing, was published online by the Ruptly video news agency.

Need more, go review that in which you mock!

Will it happen in the US?

Can we 100% eliminate this from happening here on our soil? Nothing is for certain!

Relax a bit. Half of that is bordering on incoherence. But again, 0 deaths by terrorists posing as refugees since 2001. I understand that despicable methods are used involving kids, the elderly, the disabled etc. But again, 0 deaths from terrorists posing as refugees.

[knapplc]

We cannot and never will be able to 100% guarantee Americans will be safe on American soil. This ban won't do it, making the vetting process more stringent won't do it, nothing.

 

Stop trying to make life safe. It isn't. You're not going to survive it.

[Moiraine]

We cannot and never will be able to 100% guarantee Americans will be safe on American soil. This ban won't do it, making the vetting process more stringent won't do it, nothing.

 

Stop trying to make life safe. It isn't. You're not going to survive it.

 

I was thinking about this earlier. The ban is such a weird reaction. Why would it make people feel safe?

 

Anyone, anywhere, can kill pretty much anyone they want if they so desire (excluding famous, well-guarded people). It will never be possible to prevent this. I have kitchen knives. If I wanted to go outside and stab someone in the kidneys right now, I could. There are always going to be Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Athiests who kill people. None of us are completely safe from the possibility of getting murdered.

 

That said there are ao many much more likely ways to die that the amount of attention this stuff gets, and the flipping ban, are stupid as hell. Not saying we should stop protecting ourselves and increase the probability that we can get murdered, but going to these extremea is ridiculous.

[knapplc]

They can't even get their message straight.

White House tries to ban the word 'ban,' hours after president uses it himself

President Trump used the word "ban" in a tweet as recently as Monday to describe his new executive order suspending travel from seven Muslim-majority countries and halting the refugee program for several months.

But facing backlash from many directions, the White House adamantly insisted Tuesday that the word is verboten.

"This is not a ban," White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer told reporters in a fiery news briefing.

 

[Fru]

Explain this one to me.

 

0 deaths from terrorists posing as refugees since 2001. All of a sudden we aren't vetting well enough and we need to ban them. Even though they haven't killed anyone.

 

30k+ deaths a year from gun violence. No extreme vetting.

 

Shouldn't we do something about that?

 

"Fru, refugees aren't citizens!"

 

 

Well, constitutional rights have been interpreted to extend to non citizens

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2017/01/30/does-the-constitution-protect-non-citizens-judges-say-yes/#7e58d0d55520

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/255281-yes-illegal-aliens-have-constitutional-rights