Jump to content
zoogs

Immigration Ban

Recommended Posts

BIGREDIOWAN    2,128

 

 

Here's an interesting and chilling take on the Immigration Ban and the reports (as posters already commented previously) that DHS officials were not respecting the court orders that prevented those bans from taking place:

 

https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/trial-balloon-for-a-coup-e024990891d5#.rvs7gzhlh

 

 

 

...the administration is testing the extent to which the DHS (and other executive agencies) can act and ignore orders from the other branches of government. This is as serious as it can possibly get: all of the arguments about whether order X or Y is unconstitutional mean nothing if elements of the government are executing them and the courts are being ignored.

 

Yesterday was the trial balloon for a coup d’état against the United States. It gave them useful information.

The case made here is not too far fetched, especially when one takes into account how many Federal vacancies and dismissals have occurred. And this, coupled with the theory that Trump is using this action as a way to find out who is loyal to the United States or the Trump Administration (with the explicit purpose of replacing the former with more of the latter) does not bode well for our country.

 

Also, going back to the 'golden showers' dossier...

 

On Wednesday, Reuters reported (in great detail) how 19.5% of Rosneft, Russia’s state oil company, has been sold to parties unknown. This was done through a dizzying array of shell companies, so that the most that can be said with certainty now is that the money “paying” for it was originally loaned out to the shell layers by VTB (the government’s official bank), even though it’s highly unclear who, if anyone, would be paying that loan back; and the recipients have been traced as far as some Cayman Islands shell companies.

 

Why is this interesting? Because the much-maligned Steele Dossier (the one with the golden showers in it) included the statement that Putin had offered Trump 19% of Rosneft if he became president and removed sanctions. The reason this is so interesting is that the dossier said this in July, and the sale didn’t happen until early December. And 19.5% sounds an awful lot like “19% plus a brokerage commission.”

 

 

Yeah...interesting indeed.

 

It's amazing how the pro-Trump folks seem to have scurried away from the light of this and other threads as of late. :-|

What's the point in even commenting at this point? There's no way folks are really going to listen to anything. Everyone is so worked up it's just not worth it to me.
I for one would like a dissenting opinion if only to check my own. Are you in agreement with the ban, and the wall BRI?

 

Our borders need to be secured, but we also need to enforce the laws on the books. We don't do that now which has led to the problem being on such a large scale. I can stop an illegal alien on a traffic stop and there is nothing I can do about it and ICE won't help me. So I issue them a ticket for something like no driver's license, impound their vehicle and tell them to take a walk. So unless I stop a van load, truck load, etc with 20 or more illegal aliens in it ICE simply doesn't care. Well, that's a problem IMO and it needs addressed. If that means hiring more ICE agents then so be it. So increasing the border patrol and ICE agents which Trump has mentioned is a logical step. Building a "wall" may not help the problem. I have no idea, I know on some parts of the border illegal aliens can just walk across the border so it may help in those areas. That's a problem considering terrorists could/may come into the United States via Mexico.

 

I have no problem with hispanic folks, they are hard workers and frankly do that job that United States citizens may not do, I grew up in a diverse area so I have several hispanic friends. Frankly some U.S. citizens would rather sit on their a$$, collect their welfare than go find a job, so giving these folks a path to citizenship makes sense IMO. I figured once Trump got in there he'd find out rather quickly it's impossible and extremely expensive to round up all illegal aliens and deport them from the country. On the job training unfortunately is part of the Trump presidency. That's going to hurt at times and he's going to screw up, problem is that's going to piss off a few people along the way. Find these folks, register them, give them a path to citizenship. Evan McMullin's immigration plan was something I wholeheartedly agreed with. https://www.evanmcmullin.com/immigration

 

As far as the "muslim ban" I don't agree with banning just muslim's. I have friends that are muslim's and they are good people. I do think we need to make sure we are doing our due diligence in a post 9/11 world to make sure folks coming from countries where terrorist cells operate and may have terrorist ties aren't part of such associations. You can't just say, "Oh, they're refugees and 10 year old children, let them in" I've seen video upon video of 10 year old boys being trained by ISIS to be murderers and killing full grown adult males in their training. They are desensitized killers and they'll kill you without thinking twice about it, that's reality, that's not make believe. Now, that's just one example, I realize not all of the children and folks coming here are terrorists or have that intent. No, I don't agree with some 5 or 6 year old girl being put into handcuffs IF that really happened. I've only seen folks with hands behind their backs in those photos, no actual photos of handcuffs at this point. Is it convenient that the 7 countries mentioned fall in line with who Trump has or has not done business with? Sure, but when those same 7 countries were identified by the Obama administration you're going to have a hard time convincing me that he picked those 7 countries to ban because of business connections.

 

My problem is Democrats having acknowledge a few things here:

1. President Obama banned folks coming from Iraq for 6 months in 2011. Some of those not allowed in had helped our military in some capacity. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/barack-obama-ban-refugees-did-iraq-iraqi-muslim-trump-jimmy-carter-iran-iranian-immigration/

2. President Clinton even spoke along similar lines all the way back in 1995 from what I understand and wanted to get aggressive with terrorist issues. I've just seen some stuff pop up here and there. I was 15 so I don't remember the speech, just seen some headlines pop up so I could off on this.

3. This ban is for 90 days, not eternity, that hasn't been admitted by democrats. You are acting like it's the end of the world. If we can make our vetting process better, we need to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigRedBuster    8,064

So....Trump campaigned on some pretty strong points that either you are fully on board with or you are pretty uncomfortable with. When he was elected, even the people close to him were going around to news stations and claiming..."well....that was campaign talk, he won't really do what he said he will do".

 

Well...here comes this immigration ban. When people raised a stink about it, all we heard then was..."Hey, he's doing what he said he was. We should praise him for keeping his promises."

 

NOW....his pose is trying to say..."well...this isn't a Muslim ban". Remember, he campaigned on flat out banning Muslim immigration. There is no way to argue he didn't say that on the campaign trail.

 

 

WTF???? Just flat out say it. Are we supposed to expect what he said on the campaign trail or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TAKODA    580

While this may be splitting hairs, this individual ( Tashfeen Malik )was not a refugee, but rather came over on a Visa. However, it does show, we do need to improve our vetting process. Yes, Americans were killed, so don't polish this turd as if there isn't real problems with the past vetting process, no matter if it is refugee based or Visa based.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigRedBuster    8,064

Our borders need to be secured, but we also need to enforce the laws on the books. We don't do that now which has led to the problem being on such a large scale. I can stop an illegal alien on a traffic stop and there is nothing I can do about it and ICE won't help me. So I issue them a ticket for something like no driver's license, impound their vehicle and tell them to take a walk. So unless I stop a van load, truck load, etc with 20 or more illegal aliens in it ICE simply doesn't care. Well, that's a problem IMO and it needs addressed. If that means hiring more ICE agents then so be it. So increasing the border patrol and ICE agents which Trump has mentioned is a logical step. Building a "wall" may not help the problem. I have no idea, I know on some parts of the border illegal aliens can just walk across the border so it may help in those areas. That's a problem considering terrorists could/may come into the United States via Mexico.

 

 

So, I guess I have to ask, what would you like to see happen if you stop a person who you suspect is illegal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Enhance    3,497

 

First of all, it's not temporary for Syria, the country whose citizens need our help more than anyone.

 

 

I do not think it is a "Muslim Ban"...if it was then why not just shut down all countries listed as having majority Muslim population?

Because that would be illegal, so they couched it in distracting rhetoric. Guilliani even admitted as such on Fox News, saying Trump wanted a muslim ban and came to Rudy to ask, "How can we make this legal?" Easy. By finding some other excuse to ban entry from these Middle Eastern countries.

 

 

 

I am hopeful that the temporary ban will allow the Feds to revamp/fix/address/whatever the vetting processes that happen for those from the 7 countries (and possibly all countries) before they enter our country legally.

Would you care to offer any kind of evidence or support of ANY kind whatsoever that the vetting process needs to be revamped, fixed, addressed, or whatever? 800,000 refugees here since 9/11 - not a one has killed an American citizen, and 3 have been charged with terrorism-related crimes. That's 99.99999% effective. So many people are saying this is a a good idea until we can solve the problem with our vetting - the question is, what problem? There doesn't seem to be one that exists, and though I and others have countless times posted the screening process graphics from the White House, nobody has ever cared to respond.

 

 

 

There's a few problems I have with immigration at large:

1. Our path to citizenship sucks and it's way too hard for good people to enter the country legally.

2. Our ability to prevent bad immigration sucks and it's way too easy for bad people to enter the country illegally.

3. People who attempt to solve problem #1 by exacerbating #2 are part of the problem.

4. People who don't want to solve #1 until #2 is solved are part of the problem.

 

I remember thinking in 2011/2012 that then President Obama could redeem himself in the upcoming election by pushing an issue that was very ripe in my opinion: solving #1 and #2 with a broad immigration reform. He (nor did Romney) talk about immigration.

re: the bolded, what do these have anything to do with Trump's refugee ban? It is easy for bad people to enter our country, period. Forget illegally. They can get here on tourist visas with tremendous ease. They're not trying to pose as refugees or immigrate - that's way more work and way more difficult. Further, Obama actually did quite a bit. I see a lot of conservatives on Facebook referencing his Iraq refugee halt in 2011, which was in response to an actual terrorist threat in the states, and resulted in a revamp of our now extremely thorough and effective vetting procedures.

 

Evidence or support, do I have to find a Facebook post or reddit image to back my opinion?

 

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2015/11/the-refugee-vetting-process-will-fail

 

http://www.npr.org/2015/11/17/456395388/paris-attacks-ignite-debate-over-u-s-refugee-policy

 

http://immigrationreform.com/2016/09/30/naturalization-errors-expose-vetting-problems/

 

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-syria-refugees-vetting-gap-20170125-story.html ---Read this one first.

 

 

 

Ask the European countries that have been having issues with immigrants/refugees from some of these 7 countries if you think there aren't issues.

 

As far as what you bolded, I was stating my opinion on Immigration as a whole.

 

It would appear there are some concerns and deficiencies in the vetting process - those were interesting reads.

However, we can improve our processes through well-conceived legislation. We can improve our national security by producing fair but strict immigration guidelines. What we can't do, and shouldn't do, is draft chaotic, confusing and in-part unconstitutional executive orders.

This is a disappointing path towards improved national security, particularly when we consider Landlord's point - the current vetting process has been 99.9% effective. I will admit letting one bad apple slip through is unacceptable, particularly if it costs someone their life, but I do think this is a poor way of trying to fix the .01% of an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NM11046    2,042

I'm waiting for Mr Trump or his people to say, "it's not a true muslim ban, yes we called it that because it's complicated and we neededs a simple way to communicate it out to the (stupid) American people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BIGREDIOWAN    2,128

 

 

 

 

Here's an interesting and chilling take on the Immigration Ban and the reports (as posters already commented previously) that DHS officials were not respecting the court orders that prevented those bans from taking place:

 

https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/trial-balloon-for-a-coup-e024990891d5#.rvs7gzhlh

 

 

...the administration is testing the extent to which the DHS (and other executive agencies) can act and ignore orders from the other branches of government. This is as serious as it can possibly get: all of the arguments about whether order X or Y is unconstitutional mean nothing if elements of the government are executing them and the courts are being ignored.
Yesterday was the trial balloon for a coup d’état against the United States. It gave them useful information.

 

 

The case made here is not too far fetched, especially when one takes into account how many Federal vacancies and dismissals have occurred. And this, coupled with the theory that Trump is using this action as a way to find out who is loyal to the United States or the Trump Administration (with the explicit purpose of replacing the former with more of the latter) does not bode well for our country.

 

Also, going back to the 'golden showers' dossier...

 

On Wednesday, Reuters reported (in great detail) how 19.5% of Rosneft, Russia’s state oil company, has been sold to parties unknown. This was done through a dizzying array of shell companies, so that the most that can be said with certainty now is that the money “paying” for it was originally loaned out to the shell layers by VTB (the government’s official bank), even though it’s highly unclear who, if anyone, would be paying that loan back; and the recipients have been traced as far as some Cayman Islands shell companies.

 

Why is this interesting? Because the much-maligned Steele Dossier (the one with the golden showers in it) included the statement that Putin had offered Trump 19% of Rosneft if he became president and removed sanctions. The reason this is so interesting is that the dossier said this in July, and the sale didn’t happen until early December. And 19.5% sounds an awful lot like “19% plus a brokerage commission.”

 

 

Yeah...interesting indeed.

 

It's amazing how the pro-Trump folks seem to have scurried away from the light of this and other threads as of late. :-|

What's the point in even commenting at this point? There's no way folks are really going to listen to anything. Everyone is so worked up it's just not worth it to me.

 

 

I'd love to listen to someone explain their support for an administration that thinks putting 5 year olds in handcuffs at the airport is a good idea.

 

See..........it's assumed I'm okay with that, even though I never said that at any point, just because I voted for Trump. #assumptions

 

I'm sorry, but you sanctioned this.

 

Thanks for blaming me personally for this, apparently you didn't read Zoogs post that was around the same time as yours? You don't get to blame ME personally for some of these decisions. I don't really care if you agree with that or not. To me you are personally trying to attack me and I'm simply not going to put up with that sh#t. Period........mod status be dammed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BIGREDIOWAN    2,128

 

Our borders need to be secured, but we also need to enforce the laws on the books. We don't do that now which has led to the problem being on such a large scale. I can stop an illegal alien on a traffic stop and there is nothing I can do about it and ICE won't help me. So I issue them a ticket for something like no driver's license, impound their vehicle and tell them to take a walk. So unless I stop a van load, truck load, etc with 20 or more illegal aliens in it ICE simply doesn't care. Well, that's a problem IMO and it needs addressed. If that means hiring more ICE agents then so be it. So increasing the border patrol and ICE agents which Trump has mentioned is a logical step. Building a "wall" may not help the problem. I have no idea, I know on some parts of the border illegal aliens can just walk across the border so it may help in those areas. That's a problem considering terrorists could/may come into the United States via Mexico.

 

 

So, I guess I have to ask, what would you like to see happen if you stop a person who you suspect is illegal?

 

ICE should come out to our location, take information from this individual to register them and then get them on the road to citizenship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cdog923    1,255

 

 

 

 

 

Here's an interesting and chilling take on the Immigration Ban and the reports (as posters already commented previously) that DHS officials were not respecting the court orders that prevented those bans from taking place:

 

https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/trial-balloon-for-a-coup-e024990891d5#.rvs7gzhlh

 

 

...the administration is testing the extent to which the DHS (and other executive agencies) can act and ignore orders from the other branches of government. This is as serious as it can possibly get: all of the arguments about whether order X or Y is unconstitutional mean nothing if elements of the government are executing them and the courts are being ignored.
Yesterday was the trial balloon for a coup d’état against the United States. It gave them useful information.

 

 

The case made here is not too far fetched, especially when one takes into account how many Federal vacancies and dismissals have occurred. And this, coupled with the theory that Trump is using this action as a way to find out who is loyal to the United States or the Trump Administration (with the explicit purpose of replacing the former with more of the latter) does not bode well for our country.

 

Also, going back to the 'golden showers' dossier...

 

On Wednesday, Reuters reported (in great detail) how 19.5% of Rosneft, Russia’s state oil company, has been sold to parties unknown. This was done through a dizzying array of shell companies, so that the most that can be said with certainty now is that the money “paying” for it was originally loaned out to the shell layers by VTB (the government’s official bank), even though it’s highly unclear who, if anyone, would be paying that loan back; and the recipients have been traced as far as some Cayman Islands shell companies.

 

Why is this interesting? Because the much-maligned Steele Dossier (the one with the golden showers in it) included the statement that Putin had offered Trump 19% of Rosneft if he became president and removed sanctions. The reason this is so interesting is that the dossier said this in July, and the sale didn’t happen until early December. And 19.5% sounds an awful lot like “19% plus a brokerage commission.”

 

 

Yeah...interesting indeed.

 

It's amazing how the pro-Trump folks seem to have scurried away from the light of this and other threads as of late. :-|

What's the point in even commenting at this point? There's no way folks are really going to listen to anything. Everyone is so worked up it's just not worth it to me.

 

 

I'd love to listen to someone explain their support for an administration that thinks putting 5 year olds in handcuffs at the airport is a good idea.

 

See..........it's assumed I'm okay with that, even though I never said that at any point, just because I voted for Trump. #assumptions

 

I'm sorry, but you sanctioned this.

 

Thanks for blaming me personally for this, apparently you didn't read Zoogs post that was around the same time as yours? You don't get to blame ME personally for some of these decisions. I don't really care if you agree with that or not. To me you are personally trying to attack me and I'm simply not going to put up with that sh#t. Period........mod status be dammed.

 

If you feel like I am attacking you, then that is your own prerogative. However, it was known that Trump would attempt to take this sort of action throughout his entire campaign. You chose to vote for him, thereby sanctioning these actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigRedBuster    8,064

 

 

Our borders need to be secured, but we also need to enforce the laws on the books. We don't do that now which has led to the problem being on such a large scale. I can stop an illegal alien on a traffic stop and there is nothing I can do about it and ICE won't help me. So I issue them a ticket for something like no driver's license, impound their vehicle and tell them to take a walk. So unless I stop a van load, truck load, etc with 20 or more illegal aliens in it ICE simply doesn't care. Well, that's a problem IMO and it needs addressed. If that means hiring more ICE agents then so be it. So increasing the border patrol and ICE agents which Trump has mentioned is a logical step. Building a "wall" may not help the problem. I have no idea, I know on some parts of the border illegal aliens can just walk across the border so it may help in those areas. That's a problem considering terrorists could/may come into the United States via Mexico.

 

 

So, I guess I have to ask, what would you like to see happen if you stop a person who you suspect is illegal?

 

ICE should come out to our location, take information from this individual to register them and then get them on the road to citizenship.

 

OK...I can handle that.

 

But, correct me if I'm wrong, but at this time, there isn't a road to citizenship that this person can be put on.

 

I know one side in the past few elections has talked about a fast track to citizenship and the other side ridiculed it and voted for the guy who talked about having a deportation force and deporting millions of people who are here illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oade    89

 

 

First of all, it's not temporary for Syria, the country whose citizens need our help more than anyone.

 

 

I do not think it is a "Muslim Ban"...if it was then why not just shut down all countries listed as having majority Muslim population?

Because that would be illegal, so they couched it in distracting rhetoric. Guilliani even admitted as such on Fox News, saying Trump wanted a muslim ban and came to Rudy to ask, "How can we make this legal?" Easy. By finding some other excuse to ban entry from these Middle Eastern countries.

 

 

 

I am hopeful that the temporary ban will allow the Feds to revamp/fix/address/whatever the vetting processes that happen for those from the 7 countries (and possibly all countries) before they enter our country legally.

Would you care to offer any kind of evidence or support of ANY kind whatsoever that the vetting process needs to be revamped, fixed, addressed, or whatever? 800,000 refugees here since 9/11 - not a one has killed an American citizen, and 3 have been charged with terrorism-related crimes. That's 99.99999% effective. So many people are saying this is a a good idea until we can solve the problem with our vetting - the question is, what problem? There doesn't seem to be one that exists, and though I and others have countless times posted the screening process graphics from the White House, nobody has ever cared to respond.

 

 

 

There's a few problems I have with immigration at large:

1. Our path to citizenship sucks and it's way too hard for good people to enter the country legally.

2. Our ability to prevent bad immigration sucks and it's way too easy for bad people to enter the country illegally.

3. People who attempt to solve problem #1 by exacerbating #2 are part of the problem.

4. People who don't want to solve #1 until #2 is solved are part of the problem.

 

I remember thinking in 2011/2012 that then President Obama could redeem himself in the upcoming election by pushing an issue that was very ripe in my opinion: solving #1 and #2 with a broad immigration reform. He (nor did Romney) talk about immigration.

re: the bolded, what do these have anything to do with Trump's refugee ban? It is easy for bad people to enter our country, period. Forget illegally. They can get here on tourist visas with tremendous ease. They're not trying to pose as refugees or immigrate - that's way more work and way more difficult. Further, Obama actually did quite a bit. I see a lot of conservatives on Facebook referencing his Iraq refugee halt in 2011, which was in response to an actual terrorist threat in the states, and resulted in a revamp of our now extremely thorough and effective vetting procedures.

 

Evidence or support, do I have to find a Facebook post or reddit image to back my opinion?

 

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2015/11/the-refugee-vetting-process-will-fail

 

http://www.npr.org/2015/11/17/456395388/paris-attacks-ignite-debate-over-u-s-refugee-policy

 

http://immigrationreform.com/2016/09/30/naturalization-errors-expose-vetting-problems/

 

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-syria-refugees-vetting-gap-20170125-story.html ---Read this one first.

 

 

 

Ask the European countries that have been having issues with immigrants/refugees from some of these 7 countries if you think there aren't issues.

 

As far as what you bolded, I was stating my opinion on Immigration as a whole.

 

It would appear there are some concerns and deficiencies in the vetting process - those were interesting reads.

However, we can improve our processes through well-conceived legislation. We can improve our national security by producing fair but strict immigration guidelines. What we can't do, and shouldn't do, is draft chaotic, confusing and in-part unconstitutional executive orders.

This is a disappointing path towards improved national security, particularly when we consider Landlord's point - the current vetting process has been 99.9% effective. I will admit letting one bad apple slip through is unacceptable, particularly if it costs someone their life, but I do think this is a poor way of trying to fix the .01% of an issue.

 

 

 

I agree about unconstitutional executive orders, it was my biggest complaint of the previous two Presidents as well.

 

However, I think by allowing even just one "refugee" (or immigrant of any sort into the country) that doesn't have the interest of the Constitution in their intentions is FAR more dangerous to the constitution than a temporary-ban and improved-vetting process.

 

We all have the Freedom of Religion, so if a certain refugee or immigrant supports oppressing people for choosing a different faction of Islam (which is sort of the big part of the issue) or for social freedoms we have here in the US, then they should not be allowed in. If they do not support the laws of the Constitution fully, then they should go elsewhere.... And if even just one Terrorist slips through the cracks, like what looks to be the case in Canada this weekend, then it undermines everyone's freedoms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GM_Tood    1,409

Your position is that because some countries in Europe have problems with those countries, the US has to BAN ALL travel & immigration for ANYONE associated with those countries until the US determines IF our vetting needs to be changed? This is your opinion despite the high success rate of this vetting?

 

Again, I am not saying it is perfect and by all means, lets look at improving our immigration vetting procedures. Nothing has been provided that indicates this type of ban is needed for improvement to take place. Nor is there any quantitative evidence the ban is needed to address an immediate or imminent threat.

 

Do we have to shut down the Treasury while the IRS implements changes to tax code? Do we have to shut down all police enforcement from a department while we investigate an officer? Do we close school districts while we review student achievement scores? Do we stop all interstate narcotics enforcement while the DEA reviews states legalizing marijuana?

 

The idea this ban is anything but racist policy is laughable given how few of the "bad element" have made it through...

 

I was just stating that there are issues with immigrants/refugees from these countries. I am saying, IMO, if there are issues to the Immigration/Refugee process please fix it. I don't think Trump is saying there is an imminent threat. He is banking another promise he made to those that elected him...and part of that vote was knowing that the Immigration ban was coming. And he knows that his platform is based on America First. Be proactive instead of reactive when it comes to the possibility of terrorism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BIGREDIOWAN    2,128

 

 

 

Our borders need to be secured, but we also need to enforce the laws on the books. We don't do that now which has led to the problem being on such a large scale. I can stop an illegal alien on a traffic stop and there is nothing I can do about it and ICE won't help me. So I issue them a ticket for something like no driver's license, impound their vehicle and tell them to take a walk. So unless I stop a van load, truck load, etc with 20 or more illegal aliens in it ICE simply doesn't care. Well, that's a problem IMO and it needs addressed. If that means hiring more ICE agents then so be it. So increasing the border patrol and ICE agents which Trump has mentioned is a logical step. Building a "wall" may not help the problem. I have no idea, I know on some parts of the border illegal aliens can just walk across the border so it may help in those areas. That's a problem considering terrorists could/may come into the United States via Mexico.

 

 

So, I guess I have to ask, what would you like to see happen if you stop a person who you suspect is illegal?

 

ICE should come out to our location, take information from this individual to register them and then get them on the road to citizenship.

 

OK...I can handle that.

 

But, correct me if I'm wrong, but at this time, there isn't a road to citizenship that this person can be put on.

 

I know one side in the past few elections has talked about a fast track to citizenship and the other side ridiculed it and voted for the guy who talked about having a deportation force and deporting millions of people who are here illegal.

 

Nope, there isn't, but Trump has backed off of deporting everyone from what I understand. He's mainly talking about those that are criminals from what I've heard. Do we want those folks here? I personally don't, we've got enough criminals at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BIGREDIOWAN    2,128

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here's an interesting and chilling take on the Immigration Ban and the reports (as posters already commented previously) that DHS officials were not respecting the court orders that prevented those bans from taking place:

 

https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/trial-balloon-for-a-coup-e024990891d5#.rvs7gzhlh

 

 

...the administration is testing the extent to which the DHS (and other executive agencies) can act and ignore orders from the other branches of government. This is as serious as it can possibly get: all of the arguments about whether order X or Y is unconstitutional mean nothing if elements of the government are executing them and the courts are being ignored.
Yesterday was the trial balloon for a coup d’état against the United States. It gave them useful information.

 

 

The case made here is not too far fetched, especially when one takes into account how many Federal vacancies and dismissals have occurred. And this, coupled with the theory that Trump is using this action as a way to find out who is loyal to the United States or the Trump Administration (with the explicit purpose of replacing the former with more of the latter) does not bode well for our country.

 

Also, going back to the 'golden showers' dossier...

 

On Wednesday, Reuters reported (in great detail) how 19.5% of Rosneft, Russia’s state oil company, has been sold to parties unknown. This was done through a dizzying array of shell companies, so that the most that can be said with certainty now is that the money “paying” for it was originally loaned out to the shell layers by VTB (the government’s official bank), even though it’s highly unclear who, if anyone, would be paying that loan back; and the recipients have been traced as far as some Cayman Islands shell companies.

 

Why is this interesting? Because the much-maligned Steele Dossier (the one with the golden showers in it) included the statement that Putin had offered Trump 19% of Rosneft if he became president and removed sanctions. The reason this is so interesting is that the dossier said this in July, and the sale didn’t happen until early December. And 19.5% sounds an awful lot like “19% plus a brokerage commission.”

 

 

Yeah...interesting indeed.

 

It's amazing how the pro-Trump folks seem to have scurried away from the light of this and other threads as of late. :-|

What's the point in even commenting at this point? There's no way folks are really going to listen to anything. Everyone is so worked up it's just not worth it to me.

 

 

I'd love to listen to someone explain their support for an administration that thinks putting 5 year olds in handcuffs at the airport is a good idea.

 

See..........it's assumed I'm okay with that, even though I never said that at any point, just because I voted for Trump. #assumptions

 

I'm sorry, but you sanctioned this.

 

Thanks for blaming me personally for this, apparently you didn't read Zoogs post that was around the same time as yours? You don't get to blame ME personally for some of these decisions. I don't really care if you agree with that or not. To me you are personally trying to attack me and I'm simply not going to put up with that sh#t. Period........mod status be dammed.

 

If you feel like I am attacking you, then that is your own prerogative. However, it was known that Trump would attempt to take this sort of action throughout his entire campaign. You chose to vote for him, thereby sanctioning these actions.

 

I suppose that's another opinion........I'll some how figure out how to move on with my day. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ColoNoCoHusker    396

While this may be splitting hairs, this individual ( Tashfeen Malik )was not a refugee, but rather came over on a Visa. However, it does show, we do need to improve our vetting process. Yes, Americans were killed, so don't polish this turd as if there isn't real problems with the past vetting process, no matter if it is refugee based or Visa based.

 

Who immigrated to the US from Pakistan, married to the son of Pakistani immigrants. Pakistan - a country absent from the immigration ban. So how does that case justify Trump's ban?

 

Again, I am happy to look at improving our vetting procedures or actually improving them. However, the current ban would have had NO impact on this case nor the 9/11 attacks. These are the two examples the EO cites.

 

If we aren't going to address an actual problem, what are we doing?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rizwan_Farook_and_Tashfeen_Malik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Enhance    3,497

However, I think by allowing even just one "refugee" (or immigrant of any sort into the country) that doesn't have the interest of the Constitution in their intentions is FAR more dangerous than a temporary-ban and improved-vetting process.

Can you clarify the bolded for me, please? Are you saying it's dangerous to let a refugee into the country who has no interest in upholding the laws of our Constitution?

 

(I'm not trying to be obstinate - I promise. I may just be reading your sentence incorrectly).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TAKODA    580

 

While this may be splitting hairs, this individual ( Tashfeen Malik )was not a refugee, but rather came over on a Visa. However, it does show, we do need to improve our vetting process. Yes, Americans were killed, so don't polish this turd as if there isn't real problems with the past vetting process, no matter if it is refugee based or Visa based.

 

Who immigrated to the US from Pakistan, married to the son of Pakistani immigrants. Pakistan - a country absent from the immigration ban. So how does that case justify Trump's ban?

 

Again, I am happy to look at improving our vetting procedures or actually improving them. However, the current ban would have had NO impact on this case nor the 9/11 attacks. These are the two examples the EO cites.

 

If we aren't going to address an actual problem, what are we doing?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rizwan_Farook_and_Tashfeen_Malik

You and the press are using the word Ban!

 

Thanks for that Colo, so need I say more? Is there a reason I need to speak further on this. It points at a fault, a point of weakness. Maybe vetting him, would not have impacted 9/11. Maybe it will prevent another 9/11 in the future. OH WAIT, they were not on the list of countries who are risky.

 

We should do no more than we already are, it's all good.

 

Europe says hello!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zoogs    6,367

 

However, I think by allowing even just one "refugee" (or immigrant of any sort into the country) that doesn't have the interest of the Constitution in their intentions is FAR more dangerous than a temporary-ban and improved-vetting process.

Can you clarify the bolded for me, please? Are you saying it's dangerous to let a refugee into the country who has no interest in upholding the laws of our Constitution?

 

(I'm not trying to be obstinate - I promise. I may just be reading your sentence incorrectly).

 

The President of the United States does not have the interests of the Constitution in his intentions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ColoNoCoHusker    396

 

 

 

 

Our borders need to be secured, but we also need to enforce the laws on the books. We don't do that now which has led to the problem being on such a large scale. I can stop an illegal alien on a traffic stop and there is nothing I can do about it and ICE won't help me. So I issue them a ticket for something like no driver's license, impound their vehicle and tell them to take a walk. So unless I stop a van load, truck load, etc with 20 or more illegal aliens in it ICE simply doesn't care. Well, that's a problem IMO and it needs addressed. If that means hiring more ICE agents then so be it. So increasing the border patrol and ICE agents which Trump has mentioned is a logical step. Building a "wall" may not help the problem. I have no idea, I know on some parts of the border illegal aliens can just walk across the border so it may help in those areas. That's a problem considering terrorists could/may come into the United States via Mexico.

 

 

So, I guess I have to ask, what would you like to see happen if you stop a person who you suspect is illegal?

 

ICE should come out to our location, take information from this individual to register them and then get them on the road to citizenship.

 

OK...I can handle that.

 

But, correct me if I'm wrong, but at this time, there isn't a road to citizenship that this person can be put on.

 

I know one side in the past few elections has talked about a fast track to citizenship and the other side ridiculed it and voted for the guy who talked about having a deportation force and deporting millions of people who are here illegal.

 

Nope, there isn't, but Trump has backed off of deporting everyone from what I understand. He's mainly talking about those that are criminals from what I've heard. Do we want those folks here? I personally don't, we've got enough criminals at this point.

 

 

I do recall something Trump or someone on his team stated that being in the US illegally is by definition a criminal act when they were out here campaigning. Not finding the link but there needs to a distinction of what constitutes "criminal". I do volunteer work that has illegal/undocumented aliens as a large part of the serviced contingency. In my experience, these are the people that we should want to keep in this country. They are typically (99/100) better contributors & law-abiders than people born here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BIGREDIOWAN    2,128

 

 

 

 

 

Our borders need to be secured, but we also need to enforce the laws on the books. We don't do that now which has led to the problem being on such a large scale. I can stop an illegal alien on a traffic stop and there is nothing I can do about it and ICE won't help me. So I issue them a ticket for something like no driver's license, impound their vehicle and tell them to take a walk. So unless I stop a van load, truck load, etc with 20 or more illegal aliens in it ICE simply doesn't care. Well, that's a problem IMO and it needs addressed. If that means hiring more ICE agents then so be it. So increasing the border patrol and ICE agents which Trump has mentioned is a logical step. Building a "wall" may not help the problem. I have no idea, I know on some parts of the border illegal aliens can just walk across the border so it may help in those areas. That's a problem considering terrorists could/may come into the United States via Mexico.

 

 

So, I guess I have to ask, what would you like to see happen if you stop a person who you suspect is illegal?

 

ICE should come out to our location, take information from this individual to register them and then get them on the road to citizenship.

 

OK...I can handle that.

 

But, correct me if I'm wrong, but at this time, there isn't a road to citizenship that this person can be put on.

 

I know one side in the past few elections has talked about a fast track to citizenship and the other side ridiculed it and voted for the guy who talked about having a deportation force and deporting millions of people who are here illegal.

 

Nope, there isn't, but Trump has backed off of deporting everyone from what I understand. He's mainly talking about those that are criminals from what I've heard. Do we want those folks here? I personally don't, we've got enough criminals at this point.

 

 

I do recall something Trump or someone on his team stated that being in the US illegally is by definition a criminal act when they were out here campaigning. Not finding the link but there needs to a distinction of what constitutes "criminal". I do volunteer work that has illegal/undocumented aliens as a large part of the serviced contingency. In my experience, these are the people that we should want to keep in this country. They are typically (99/100) better contributors & law-abiders than people born here.

 

Oh I agree with you, just simply being here while illegal isn't enough for me to say they need to go. Give them a path, I'm sure most are willing to take it if you can get past the trust issues with those folks. That's one of the difficult parts. Now if they are someone who's been charged or convicted of another crime like say, drug dealing, then by all means. Get those folks out of here IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NM11046    2,042

Can anyone enlighten me on whether or not in previous detentions/interviews a refuge/immigrant was asked specifically "what their feelings were on Obamas' America"? Seems odd to me that one of the questions being asked of these folks is what they think of Trumps leadership.

 

Seems cult-like, and knowing him as we do at this point, he doesn't exactly have a positive bias toward anyone who disagrees with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ColoNoCoHusker    396

 

 

While this may be splitting hairs, this individual ( Tashfeen Malik )was not a refugee, but rather came over on a Visa. However, it does show, we do need to improve our vetting process. Yes, Americans were killed, so don't polish this turd as if there isn't real problems with the past vetting process, no matter if it is refugee based or Visa based.

Who immigrated to the US from Pakistan, married to the son of Pakistani immigrants. Pakistan - a country absent from the immigration ban. So how does that case justify Trump's ban?

 

Again, I am happy to look at improving our vetting procedures or actually improving them. However, the current ban would have had NO impact on this case nor the 9/11 attacks. These are the two examples the EO cites.

 

If we aren't going to address an actual problem, what are we doing?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rizwan_Farook_and_Tashfeen_Malik

You and the press are using the word Ban!

 

Thanks for that Colo, so need I say more? Is there a reason I need to speak further on this. It points at a fault, a point of weakness. Maybe vetting him, would not have impacted 9/11. Maybe it will prevent another 9/11 in the future. OH WAIT, they are not on the list of countries who are risky.

 

We should do no more than we already are, it's all good.

 

Europe says hello!

 

 

I am asking how the case you identified is related to this thread? Europe does not define our immigration policy(s), so again that has nothing to do with it other emoting.

 

As I have stated, I am all for improving our vetting process. Can you give an example how this does that? Also, how does this immigration ban improve or change the situation with Malik?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TAKODA    580

Colo, that is why I referenced 'splitting hairs', because I recognize refugee vetting is different than what I referenced.

 

It goes towards vetting as a whole, not banning refugees, but giving the current administration enough time to get their feet under them, (review; past and current processes) to understand where the weak links or spots are. Then from there, work towards the improvement of our vetting system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zoogs    6,367

http://jezebel.com/woman-and-her-2-children-held-at-dulles-airport-for-20-1791762183

 

“They called the husband, he’s from Minnesota,” Abi explained to ABC, “They told him that you have to get your children because they’re U.S. citizens, but your wife we will deport to Africa — we’ll send her back to Africa today at 10 a.m. So if you don’t come by 10 a.m. we’ll deport her.”

 

In the meantime, the woman—thus far unnamed—was pressured to sign papers and told that her visa had been canceled. When she refused to sign, asking to wait until her husband arrived, immigration officers threatened that she would not be permitted to return to the United States. She was then told to sign her children’s paperwork so that they could accompany her back to Africa. Still, she demurred, emphasizing that she would do nothing until the family was reunited.

 

Based on Abi’s narrative, the officers grew increasingly aggressive at this point.

 

“They handcuffed her, even when she went to the bathroom,” he said.

 

Immigration then placed another call with the husband.

 

“They called her husband’s phone number, saying that we have your family here at the airport. You come and get your kids, otherwise all of them [will go] back to Africa.”

The temporary stay has allowed the family to reunite.

 

For now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BIGREDIOWAN    2,128

Can anyone enlighten me on whether or not in previous detentions/interviews a refuge/immigrant was asked specifically "what their feelings were on Obamas' America"? Seems odd to me that one of the questions being asked of these folks is what they think of Trumps leadership.

 

Seems cult-like, and knowing him as we do at this point, he doesn't exactly have a positive bias toward anyone who disagrees with him.

I have no idea, but I personally don't like that question either. How is it relevant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigRedBuster    8,064

 

 

 

 

 

 

Our borders need to be secured, but we also need to enforce the laws on the books. We don't do that now which has led to the problem being on such a large scale. I can stop an illegal alien on a traffic stop and there is nothing I can do about it and ICE won't help me. So I issue them a ticket for something like no driver's license, impound their vehicle and tell them to take a walk. So unless I stop a van load, truck load, etc with 20 or more illegal aliens in it ICE simply doesn't care. Well, that's a problem IMO and it needs addressed. If that means hiring more ICE agents then so be it. So increasing the border patrol and ICE agents which Trump has mentioned is a logical step. Building a "wall" may not help the problem. I have no idea, I know on some parts of the border illegal aliens can just walk across the border so it may help in those areas. That's a problem considering terrorists could/may come into the United States via Mexico.

 

 

So, I guess I have to ask, what would you like to see happen if you stop a person who you suspect is illegal?

 

ICE should come out to our location, take information from this individual to register them and then get them on the road to citizenship.

 

OK...I can handle that.

 

But, correct me if I'm wrong, but at this time, there isn't a road to citizenship that this person can be put on.

 

I know one side in the past few elections has talked about a fast track to citizenship and the other side ridiculed it and voted for the guy who talked about having a deportation force and deporting millions of people who are here illegal.

 

Nope, there isn't, but Trump has backed off of deporting everyone from what I understand. He's mainly talking about those that are criminals from what I've heard. Do we want those folks here? I personally don't, we've got enough criminals at this point.

 

 

I do recall something Trump or someone on his team stated that being in the US illegally is by definition a criminal act when they were out here campaigning. Not finding the link but there needs to a distinction of what constitutes "criminal". I do volunteer work that has illegal/undocumented aliens as a large part of the serviced contingency. In my experience, these are the people that we should want to keep in this country. They are typically (99/100) better contributors & law-abiders than people born here.

 

Oh I agree with you, just simply being here while illegal isn't enough for me to say they need to go. Give them a path, I'm sure most are willing to take it if you can get past the trust issues with those folks. That's one of the difficult parts. Now if they are someone who's been charged or convicted of another crime like say, drug dealing, then by all means. Get those folks out of here IMO.

 

Can you point me to where Trump has ever talked about giving them a path to citizenship?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zoogs    6,367

 

Can anyone enlighten me on whether or not in previous detentions/interviews a refuge/immigrant was asked specifically "what their feelings were on Obamas' America"? Seems odd to me that one of the questions being asked of these folks is what they think of Trumps leadership.

 

Seems cult-like, and knowing him as we do at this point, he doesn't exactly have a positive bias toward anyone who disagrees with him.

I have no idea, but I personally don't like that question either. How is it relevant?

 

It seems downright fascist.

 

We are rapidly approaching a world in which fealty to the Executive is a requirement. All of us can choose to tolerate this, or not. We cannot be so dense so as not to recognize the erosion of liberty when we see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oade    89

Can anyone enlighten me on whether or not in previous detentions/interviews a refuge/immigrant was asked specifically "what their feelings were on Obamas' America"? Seems odd to me that one of the questions being asked of these folks is what they think of Trumps leadership.

 

Seems cult-like, and knowing him as we do at this point, he doesn't exactly have a positive bias toward anyone who disagrees with him.

I have no idea, but I personally don't like that question either. How is it relevant?

 

It seems downright fascist.

 

We are rapidly approaching a world in which fealty to the Executive is a requirement. All of us can choose to tolerate this, or not. We cannot be so dense so as not to recognize the erosion of liberty when we see it.

 

 

 

The fact that there have been protests at these levels since November, without military/executive punishments for protesting, proves we are not even remotely close to a fascist level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZRod    2,852

I haven't had a chance to read the replys but I hope this is a good discussion, looks like it is.

 

So here's some numbers I was able to put together from running through wikipedia and islamic terrorist attacks post 9/11. Of the 43 terrorist attacks related to islamic extremists in, let's call them Anglo countries, (Europe, US, Australia, Canada, and exluding Russia), 22 involved a perpetrator not from these regions. Countries they came from: Jamaica(1), India(no count), Iraq(3), Kosovo(1), Iran(2), Kuwait(1), Morocco(at least 4), Pakistan(1), Turkey(1), Afghanistan(1), Somalia(1), Tunisia(1), and Syria (no countn more than 1), Algeria (no count, maybe more than 1).

 

Of the 7 attacks on US soil, 2 involved foreign nationals.

 

Many attacks were from second generation citizens, I would say atleast 40% (conservative estimate).

 

All but one were males (one was a 15 year old boy), almost all in their 20's or 30's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Landlord    7,848

My problem is Democrats having acknowledge a few things here:

1. President Obama banned folks coming from Iraq for 6 months in 2011. Some of those not allowed in had helped our military in some capacity. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/barack-obama-ban-refugees-did-iraq-iraqi-muslim-trump-jimmy-carter-iran-iranian-immigration/

2. President Clinton even spoke along similar lines all the way back in 1995 from what I understand and wanted to get aggressive with terrorist issues. I've just seen some stuff pop up here and there. I was 15 so I don't remember the speech, just seen some headlines pop up so I could off on this.

3. This ban is for 90 days, not eternity, that hasn't been admitted by democrats. You are acting like it's the end of the world. If we can make our vetting process better, we need to.

 

 

 

The differences between Obama's ban and this one are as follows.

1. It was a response to a specific terrorist threat of Iraqis in Bowling Green who slipped in and were planning a plot.

2. It only effected refugees trying to gain asylum here. It did not have any effect on people with visas or green cards - aka, people who were coming home to the United States.

3. It led to actual reform of the refugee vetting process, which I suppose we will wait to see if Trump's plan does as well (in a constitutional manner).

4. Obama's hault was for one country for 60 days. Trump's is for 90 days for 6 countries, but Syria, who's citizens are in desperate need of aid, is indefinitely banned.

 

 

 

 

I agree about unconstitutional executive orders, it was my biggest complaint of the previous two Presidents as well.

 

However, I think by allowing even just one "refugee" (or immigrant of any sort into the country) that doesn't have the interest of the Constitution in their intentions is FAR more dangerous to the constitution than a temporary-ban and improved-vetting process.

 

We all have the Freedom of Religion, so if a certain refugee or immigrant supports oppressing people for choosing a different faction of Islam (which is sort of the big part of the issue) or for social freedoms we have here in the US, then they should not be allowed in. If they do not support the laws of the Constitution fully, then they should go elsewhere.... And if even just one Terrorist slips through the cracks, like what looks to be the case in Canada this weekend, then it undermines everyone's freedoms.

 

 

The Constitution allows people the freedom to not have the interests of the Constitution in mind. That's the beautiful thing about it. Obviously, we don't want terrorists here, and we don't want people who won't be law-abiding, but two things to that point:

 

1. Again - the refugee vetting is about as good as can be. 99.99999% of refugees who have made it here have been law-abiding citizens.

 

2. Freedom comes at the cost of safety. There is nothing stopping me from walking down the hall and murdering my office mates right now. We have to decide if safety is more important, because you can't have complete freedom and complete safety in the same social structure. It's impossible to be 100% certain that everyone here is 'good', that can't ever be achieved, so should we not let anyone in? I was under the assumption that freedom was the overriding quality we fought for in America. This EO and the arguments of many (not accusing you), seem to suggest that freedom should take a back seat to safety.

 

 

 

 

Also, to those accusing BRI of being personally responsible as a Trump voter, 3:43 here:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knapplc    19,300

 

Can anyone enlighten me on whether or not in previous detentions/interviews a refuge/immigrant was asked specifically "what their feelings were on Obamas' America"? Seems odd to me that one of the questions being asked of these folks is what they think of Trumps leadership.

 

Seems cult-like, and knowing him as we do at this point, he doesn't exactly have a positive bias toward anyone who disagrees with him.

I have no idea, but I personally don't like that question either. How is it relevant?

 

It seems downright fascist.

 

We are rapidly approaching a world in which fealty to the Executive is a requirement. All of us can choose to tolerate this, or not. We cannot be so dense so as not to recognize the erosion of liberty when we see it.

 

 

 

The fact that there have been protests at these levels since November, without military/executive punishments for protesting, proves we are not even remotely close to a fascist level.

 

 

I would agree with this. But it's also better to stop Trump from going down a totalitarian (I hate the term "Fascist" since everyone's a Fascist these days) path when he's taken a couple of steps rather than letting him get a mile down the road before standing against him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Can anyone enlighten me on whether or not in previous detentions/interviews a refuge/immigrant was asked specifically "what their feelings were on Obamas' America"? Seems odd to me that one of the questions being asked of these folks is what they think of Trumps leadership.

 

Seems cult-like, and knowing him as we do at this point, he doesn't exactly have a positive bias toward anyone who disagrees with him.

I have no idea, but I personally don't like that question either. How is it relevant?

 

 

 

We are rapidly approaching a world in which fealty to the Executive is a requirement. All of us can choose to tolerate this, or not. We cannot be so dense so as not to recognize the erosion of liberty when we see it.

 

Spot on sir!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GM_Tood    1,409

 

 

Can anyone enlighten me on whether or not in previous detentions/interviews a refuge/immigrant was asked specifically "what their feelings were on Obamas' America"? Seems odd to me that one of the questions being asked of these folks is what they think of Trumps leadership.

 

Seems cult-like, and knowing him as we do at this point, he doesn't exactly have a positive bias toward anyone who disagrees with him.

I have no idea, but I personally don't like that question either. How is it relevant?

 

It seems downright fascist.

 

We are rapidly approaching a world in which fealty to the Executive is a requirement. All of us can choose to tolerate this, or not. We cannot be so dense so as not to recognize the erosion of liberty when we see it.

 

 

 

The fact that there have been protests at these levels since November, without military/executive punishments for protesting, proves we are not even remotely close to a fascist level.

 

 

I would agree with this. But it's also better to stop Trump from going down a totalitarian (I hate the term "Fascist" since everyone's a Fascist these days) path when he's taken a couple of steps rather than letting him get a mile down the road before standing against him.

 

Would you consider him/agenda along the lines of ultra nationalism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knapplc    19,300

Look at the date on this - last November, a week after the election. Trump hadn't even taken power yet, and already people were seeing the path he intended.

 

How much further down this path does he need to go before people stop defending him? Unharden your hearts, FFS.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Can anyone enlighten me on whether or not in previous detentions/interviews a refuge/immigrant was asked specifically "what their feelings were on Obamas' America"? Seems odd to me that one of the questions being asked of these folks is what they think of Trumps leadership.

 

Seems cult-like, and knowing him as we do at this point, he doesn't exactly have a positive bias toward anyone who disagrees with him.

I have no idea, but I personally don't like that question either. How is it relevant?

 

It seems downright fascist.

 

We are rapidly approaching a world in which fealty to the Executive is a requirement. All of us can choose to tolerate this, or not. We cannot be so dense so as not to recognize the erosion of liberty when we see it.

 

 

 

The fact that there have been protests at these levels since November, without military/executive punishments for protesting, proves we are not even remotely close to a fascist level.

 

Good point as well!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zoogs    6,367

The fact that there have been protests at these levels since November, without military/executive punishments for protesting, proves we are not even remotely close to a fascist level.

I did not make the claim that we are there already; hence, "approach". The intent is staring us in the face. The assault on the independent media has already begun; not with fact-based counter-arguments, but with calls for journalistic outlets to change ownership and for journalists to be fired.

 

If support for the executive is not a requirement, then this is not a question that is asked of foreign immigrants. A world where we value a free-thinking citizenry is not one in which the American people are told to get their truth directly from the President.

 

It has started there, and it will accelerate as far as we are willing to tolerate it. Niemöller is quite relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lil' Red    308

 

The fact that there have been protests at these levels since November, without military/executive punishments for protesting, proves we are not even remotely close to a fascist level.

I did not make the claim that we are there already; hence, "approach". The intent is staring us in the face. The assault on the independent media has already begun; not with fact-based counter-arguments, but with calls for journalistic outlets to change ownership and for journalists to be fired.

 

If support for the executive is not a requirement, then this is not a question that is asked of foreign immigrants. A world where we value a free-thinking citizenry is not one in which the American people are told to get their truth directly from the President.

 

It has started there, and it will accelerate as far as we are willing to tolerate it. Niemöller is quite relevant.

 

Exactly. The fact that the president continues to refer to the media as the 'opposition party' should be alarming to everyone:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zoogs    6,367

Would you consider him/agenda along the lines of ultra nationalism?

I would say so, Tood, and I'm curious about where you stand.

 

I don't believe this is what Trump is all about. However, I do think he recognizes how useful it is to him. And he has empowered people for whom this is core. The reasonable people in his administration are not, by comparison, the shot callers.

 

"Total allegiance to the country" is not a normal call to action made by a President at his inauguration. Especially where allegiance to country plainly means allegiance to his administration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knapplc    19,300

 

I would agree with this. But it's also better to stop Trump from going down a totalitarian (I hate the term "Fascist" since everyone's a Fascist these days) path when he's taken a couple of steps rather than letting him get a mile down the road before standing against him.

Would you consider him/agenda along the lines of ultra nationalism?

 

Maybe? I honestly don't know. I consider Trump himself an egoist, but Bannon is the scary wildcard here. I don't know enough about him to make an informed call. I can say this - nothing I've read about Bannon says to me what I think America should stand for. Great Melting Pot, moral leader, doing things the right way, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BIGREDIOWAN    2,128

 

My problem is Democrats having acknowledge a few things here:

1. President Obama banned folks coming from Iraq for 6 months in 2011. Some of those not allowed in had helped our military in some capacity. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/barack-obama-ban-refugees-did-iraq-iraqi-muslim-trump-jimmy-carter-iran-iranian-immigration/

2. President Clinton even spoke along similar lines all the way back in 1995 from what I understand and wanted to get aggressive with terrorist issues. I've just seen some stuff pop up here and there. I was 15 so I don't remember the speech, just seen some headlines pop up so I could off on this.

3. This ban is for 90 days, not eternity, that hasn't been admitted by democrats. You are acting like it's the end of the world. If we can make our vetting process better, we need to.

 

 

 

The differences between Obama's ban and this one are as follows.

1. It was a response to a specific terrorist threat of Iraqis in Bowling Green who slipped in and were planning a plot.

2. It only effected refugees trying to gain asylum here. It did not have any effect on people with visas or green cards - aka, people who were coming home to the United States.

3. It led to actual reform of the refugee vetting process, which I suppose we will wait to see if Trump's plan does as well (in a constitutional manner).

4. Obama's hault was for one country for 60 days. Trump's is for 90 days for 6 countries, but Syria, who's citizens are in desperate need of aid, is indefinitely banned.

 

 

 

 

I agree about unconstitutional executive orders, it was my biggest complaint of the previous two Presidents as well.

 

However, I think by allowing even just one "refugee" (or immigrant of any sort into the country) that doesn't have the interest of the Constitution in their intentions is FAR more dangerous to the constitution than a temporary-ban and improved-vetting process.

 

We all have the Freedom of Religion, so if a certain refugee or immigrant supports oppressing people for choosing a different faction of Islam (which is sort of the big part of the issue) or for social freedoms we have here in the US, then they should not be allowed in. If they do not support the laws of the Constitution fully, then they should go elsewhere.... And if even just one Terrorist slips through the cracks, like what looks to be the case in Canada this weekend, then it undermines everyone's freedoms.

 

 

The Constitution allows people the freedom to not have the interests of the Constitution in mind. That's the beautiful thing about it. Obviously, we don't want terrorists here, and we don't want people who won't be law-abiding, but two things to that point:

 

1. Again - the refugee vetting is about as good as can be. 99.99999% of refugees who have made it here have been law-abiding citizens.

 

2. Freedom comes at the cost of safety. There is nothing stopping me from walking down the hall and murdering my office mates right now. We have to decide if safety is more important, because you can't have complete freedom and complete safety in the same social structure. It's impossible to be 100% certain that everyone here is 'good', that can't ever be achieved, so should we not let anyone in? I was under the assumption that freedom was the overriding quality we fought for in America. This EO and the arguments of many (not accusing you), seem to suggest that freedom should take a back seat to safety.

 

 

 

 

Also, to those accusing BRI of being personally responsible as a Trump voter, 3:43 here:

 

 

His ban of Iraqi immigrants was for 6 months from everything I've read. During a time we were at war in the region so I could see where folks might say that's dangerous as well because folks fleeing from there were in need of our assistance during that time. I think the green card thing was a disaster and that can't happen again.

 

In reference to the vetting process and the "good as it can be" comment. We need to constantly evaluate what we're doing here as a country in response to changing threats around the globe. Thinking like that can lead to problems and instead of saying that you should be asking, "can we do more to ensure our safety?" If this action leads to a safer nation then the process was worth evaluating. I do not like that folks that were "coming home" were affected by this situation. That was a major mess up in this situation regardless of whether they were checking their status again or not. That probably could've been done to some extent at the administrative level.

 

Lastly, thanks for the video, I think some folks need to watch that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BIGREDIOWAN    2,128

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Our borders need to be secured, but we also need to enforce the laws on the books. We don't do that now which has led to the problem being on such a large scale. I can stop an illegal alien on a traffic stop and there is nothing I can do about it and ICE won't help me. So I issue them a ticket for something like no driver's license, impound their vehicle and tell them to take a walk. So unless I stop a van load, truck load, etc with 20 or more illegal aliens in it ICE simply doesn't care. Well, that's a problem IMO and it needs addressed. If that means hiring more ICE agents then so be it. So increasing the border patrol and ICE agents which Trump has mentioned is a logical step. Building a "wall" may not help the problem. I have no idea, I know on some parts of the border illegal aliens can just walk across the border so it may help in those areas. That's a problem considering terrorists could/may come into the United States via Mexico.

 

 

So, I guess I have to ask, what would you like to see happen if you stop a person who you suspect is illegal?

 

ICE should come out to our location, take information from this individual to register them and then get them on the road to citizenship.

 

OK...I can handle that.

 

But, correct me if I'm wrong, but at this time, there isn't a road to citizenship that this person can be put on.

 

I know one side in the past few elections has talked about a fast track to citizenship and the other side ridiculed it and voted for the guy who talked about having a deportation force and deporting millions of people who are here illegal.

 

Nope, there isn't, but Trump has backed off of deporting everyone from what I understand. He's mainly talking about those that are criminals from what I've heard. Do we want those folks here? I personally don't, we've got enough criminals at this point.

 

 

I do recall something Trump or someone on his team stated that being in the US illegally is by definition a criminal act when they were out here campaigning. Not finding the link but there needs to a distinction of what constitutes "criminal". I do volunteer work that has illegal/undocumented aliens as a large part of the serviced contingency. In my experience, these are the people that we should want to keep in this country. They are typically (99/100) better contributors & law-abiders than people born here.

 

Oh I agree with you, just simply being here while illegal isn't enough for me to say they need to go. Give them a path, I'm sure most are willing to take it if you can get past the trust issues with those folks. That's one of the difficult parts. Now if they are someone who's been charged or convicted of another crime like say, drug dealing, then by all means. Get those folks out of here IMO.

 

Can you point me to where Trump has ever talked about giving them a path to citizenship?

 

I don't know what you're trying to prove here, he hasn't talked about it to the best of my knowledge. He's softened his approach to it and I've linked that below, it is from August 2016 so it's what it is. I can't take my vote back and I would've still have voted for him at this point instead of Hillary if that's what you're getting at. That should tell you how much I despise that lady. Now if Biden would've ran, I would've voted for him without a doubt.

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-campaign-softens-tone-on-illegal-immigration/article/2599868

 

Let me expand further and clarify my thoughts on immigration and Trumps approach. I personally believed once he got into office he would see how big of an issue deporting millions of illegal immigrants would be and would have no choice, but to change his thought process to handle such a huge issue. I personally liked his aggressive thoughts towards it because I knew even when it did/does change to him having no choice but to offer a path. He would still do something unlike past presidents have. Obama was criticized for his lack of approach to illegal immigration and his stance on border security, one of the negatives of his presidency. Trump has been president for 10 days, so to expect him to have already changed his approach on this is pretty unrealistic. He's still getting his feet under him and will for some time. If he doesn't change his approach I was wrong with my assumption, but I know some on the job training and experiences will lead to him changing his stance on things because he'll have no choice but to change his stance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zoogs    6,367

His ban of Iraqi immigrants was for 6 months from everything I've read. During a time we were at war in the region so I could see where folks might say that's dangerous as well because folks fleeing from there were in need of our assistance during that time. I think the green card thing was a disaster and that can't happen again.

I suspect Landlord's post covers these points, but anyway, Foreign Policy outlines the differences: http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

 

This is not a blanket defense of Obama doctrine, but it's the height of gaslighting on the part of the new administration to suggest it's in any way comparable. A specific counter to the part of your post I quoted:

 

Contrary to Trump's Sunday statement and the repeated claims of his defenders, the Obama administration did not ban visas for refugees from Iraq for six months. For one thing, refugees don't travel on visas. More importantly, while the flow of Iraqi refugees slowed significantly during the Obama administrations review, refugees continued to be admitted to the United States during that time, and there was not a single month in which no Iraqis arrived here. In other words, while there were delays in processing, there was no outright ban.

WaPo has its own article, calling Trump's claim "facile": https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/29/trumps-facile-claim-that-his-refugee-policy-is-similar-to-obama-in-2011/?utm_term=.96cbb60dc6bb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigRedBuster    8,064

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Our borders need to be secured, but we also need to enforce the laws on the books. We don't do that now which has led to the problem being on such a large scale. I can stop an illegal alien on a traffic stop and there is nothing I can do about it and ICE won't help me. So I issue them a ticket for something like no driver's license, impound their vehicle and tell them to take a walk. So unless I stop a van load, truck load, etc with 20 or more illegal aliens in it ICE simply doesn't care. Well, that's a problem IMO and it needs addressed. If that means hiring more ICE agents then so be it. So increasing the border patrol and ICE agents which Trump has mentioned is a logical step. Building a "wall" may not help the problem. I have no idea, I know on some parts of the border illegal aliens can just walk across the border so it may help in those areas. That's a problem considering terrorists could/may come into the United States via Mexico.

 

 

So, I guess I have to ask, what would you like to see happen if you stop a person who you suspect is illegal?

 

ICE should come out to our location, take information from this individual to register them and then get them on the road to citizenship.

 

OK...I can handle that.

 

But, correct me if I'm wrong, but at this time, there isn't a road to citizenship that this person can be put on.

 

I know one side in the past few elections has talked about a fast track to citizenship and the other side ridiculed it and voted for the guy who talked about having a deportation force and deporting millions of people who are here illegal.

 

Nope, there isn't, but Trump has backed off of deporting everyone from what I understand. He's mainly talking about those that are criminals from what I've heard. Do we want those folks here? I personally don't, we've got enough criminals at this point.

 

 

I do recall something Trump or someone on his team stated that being in the US illegally is by definition a criminal act when they were out here campaigning. Not finding the link but there needs to a distinction of what constitutes "criminal". I do volunteer work that has illegal/undocumented aliens as a large part of the serviced contingency. In my experience, these are the people that we should want to keep in this country. They are typically (99/100) better contributors & law-abiders than people born here.

 

Oh I agree with you, just simply being here while illegal isn't enough for me to say they need to go. Give them a path, I'm sure most are willing to take it if you can get past the trust issues with those folks. That's one of the difficult parts. Now if they are someone who's been charged or convicted of another crime like say, drug dealing, then by all means. Get those folks out of here IMO.

 

Can you point me to where Trump has ever talked about giving them a path to citizenship?

 

I don't know what you're trying to prove here, he hasn't talked about it to the best of my knowledge. He's softened his approach to it and I've linked that below, it is from August 2016 so it's what it is. I can't take my vote back and I would've still have voted for him at this point instead of Hillary if that's what you're getting at. That should tell you how much I despise that lady. Now if Biden would've ran, I would've voted for him without a doubt.

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-campaign-softens-tone-on-illegal-immigration/article/2599868

 

Let me expand further and clarify my thoughts on immigration and Trumps approach. I personally believed once he got into office he would see how big of an issue deporting millions of illegal immigrants would be and would have no choice, but to change his thought process to handle such a huge issue. I personally liked his aggressive thoughts towards it because I knew even when it did/does change to him having no choice but to offer a path. He would still do something unlike past presidents have. Obama was criticized for his lack of approach to illegal immigration and his stance on border security, one of the negatives of his presidency. Trump has been president for 10 days, so to expect him to have already changed his approach on this is pretty unrealistic. He's still getting his feet under him and will for some time. If he doesn't change his approach I was wrong with my assumption, but I know some on the job training and experiences will lead to him changing his stance on things because he'll have no choice but to change his stance.

 

I'm not trying to "prove" anything. I'm having a conversation.

 

It has been stated by someone else earlier in this thread:

 

There's a few problems I have with immigration at large:

1. Our path to citizenship sucks and it's way too hard for good people to enter the country legally.

2. Our ability to prevent bad immigration sucks and it's way too easy for bad people to enter the country illegally.

3. People who attempt to solve problem #1 by exacerbating #2 are part of the problem.

4. People who don't want to solve #1 until #2 is solved are part of the problem.

 

Well, Trump has definitely done things to correct #2. He campaigned on it EXTREMELY heavily. We have seeing his actions since coming into office that prove he is serious about taking care of #2 even if anyone disagrees with his methods.

 

This person has stated that if you are not someone who is willing to work towards BOTH #1 and #2, then you are part of the problem.

 

I'm simply asking if you have seen anything from him pertaining to #1....or, is he part of the problem?

 

Your example of the traffic stop made me think about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oade    89

 

My problem is Democrats having acknowledge a few things here:

1. President Obama banned folks coming from Iraq for 6 months in 2011. Some of those not allowed in had helped our military in some capacity. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/barack-obama-ban-refugees-did-iraq-iraqi-muslim-trump-jimmy-carter-iran-iranian-immigration/

2. President Clinton even spoke along similar lines all the way back in 1995 from what I understand and wanted to get aggressive with terrorist issues. I've just seen some stuff pop up here and there. I was 15 so I don't remember the speech, just seen some headlines pop up so I could off on this.

3. This ban is for 90 days, not eternity, that hasn't been admitted by democrats. You are acting like it's the end of the world. If we can make our vetting process better, we need to.

 

 

 

The differences between Obama's ban and this one are as follows.

1. It was a response to a specific terrorist threat of Iraqis in Bowling Green who slipped in and were planning a plot.

2. It only effected refugees trying to gain asylum here. It did not have any effect on people with visas or green cards - aka, people who were coming home to the United States.

3. It led to actual reform of the refugee vetting process, which I suppose we will wait to see if Trump's plan does as well (in a constitutional manner).

4. Obama's hault was for one country for 60 days. Trump's is for 90 days for 6 countries, but Syria, who's citizens are in desperate need of aid, is indefinitely banned.

 

 

 

 

I agree about unconstitutional executive orders, it was my biggest complaint of the previous two Presidents as well.

 

However, I think by allowing even just one "refugee" (or immigrant of any sort into the country) that doesn't have the interest of the Constitution in their intentions is FAR more dangerous to the constitution than a temporary-ban and improved-vetting process.

 

We all have the Freedom of Religion, so if a certain refugee or immigrant supports oppressing people for choosing a different faction of Islam (which is sort of the big part of the issue) or for social freedoms we have here in the US, then they should not be allowed in. If they do not support the laws of the Constitution fully, then they should go elsewhere.... And if even just one Terrorist slips through the cracks, like what looks to be the case in Canada this weekend, then it undermines everyone's freedoms.

 

 

The Constitution allows people the freedom to not have the interests of the Constitution in mind. That's the beautiful thing about it. Obviously, we don't want terrorists here, and we don't want people who won't be law-abiding, but two things to that point:

 

1. Again - the refugee vetting is about as good as can be. 99.99999% of refugees who have made it here have been law-abiding citizens.

 

2. Freedom comes at the cost of safety. There is nothing stopping me from walking down the hall and murdering my office mates right now. We have to decide if safety is more important, because you can't have complete freedom and complete safety in the same social structure. It's impossible to be 100% certain that everyone here is 'good', that can't ever be achieved, so should we not let anyone in? I was under the assumption that freedom was the overriding quality we fought for in America. This EO and the arguments of many (not accusing you), seem to suggest that freedom should take a back seat to safety.

 

 

 

 

Also, to those accusing BRI of being personally responsible as a Trump voter, 3:43 here:

 

 

 

 

1. I think I agree with your first point. I'm not sure how this EO helps, but the fact that it's a Temporary order, and will no longer be in place by the time NU plays our spring game this year, makes me hopeful that something good will come of it.

 

2. But we are letting people in - on a Case-by-case decision currently....... And in 90 days we'll (presumably) be back to our normal/new process. - I posted an article on the previous page that mentions it.... Case-by-case basis, and considering the backlash so far, I would expect some case-by-case acceptions to be made soon. However, logistically speaking, its only been one working-day for cases to even be reviewed, so hopefully by mid-week we start to see some progress there.

 

2a. And no, actually you don't (and neither does any refugee) have the right to murder someone down the hall, or even steal from them (just to reduce the severity of the crime for arguments sake), you definitely don't have that right. I think its referred to as "conspiracy of first-degree murder", and you can be sent to prison for it, and lose most all of your freedoms in the process...... You may have the physical ability, but nothing within the spirit and terms of "freedom" allow for you to kill anyone, or even to "conspire", yet there is plenty within the spirit and terms to prevent and protects the right of potential-victims to not be murdered, among other things.

 

For as disappointing as it is, a temporary policy is not a new thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GM_Tood    1,409

2. Freedom comes at the cost of safety. There is nothing stopping me from walking down the hall and murdering my office mates right now. We have to decide if safety is more important, because you can't have complete freedom and complete safety in the same social structure. It's impossible to be 100% certain that everyone here is 'good', that can't ever be achieved, so should we not let anyone in? I was under the assumption that freedom was the overriding quality we fought for in America. This EO and the arguments of many (not accusing you), seem to suggest that freedom should take a back seat to safety.

If we cannot put the safety of the United States first (for 90 days) so that the freedoms that we all celebrate can continue to be celebrated....I really don't know what else to say. The world has changed, and the gov't we elected to protect our safety and freedoms has to take measures to ensure our safety/freedom.

 

Military members fight (take a vow) to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, not what is written on a plaque placed on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty.

 

edit: i see BRI already addressed some of this as well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ColoNoCoHusker    396

 

 

My problem is Democrats having acknowledge a few things here:

1. President Obama banned folks coming from Iraq for 6 months in 2011. Some of those not allowed in had helped our military in some capacity. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/barack-obama-ban-refugees-did-iraq-iraqi-muslim-trump-jimmy-carter-iran-iranian-immigration/

2. President Clinton even spoke along similar lines all the way back in 1995 from what I understand and wanted to get aggressive with terrorist issues. I've just seen some stuff pop up here and there. I was 15 so I don't remember the speech, just seen some headlines pop up so I could off on this.

3. This ban is for 90 days, not eternity, that hasn't been admitted by democrats. You are acting like it's the end of the world. If we can make our vetting process better, we need to.

 

 

 

The differences between Obama's ban and this one are as follows.

1. It was a response to a specific terrorist threat of Iraqis in Bowling Green who slipped in and were planning a plot.

2. It only effected refugees trying to gain asylum here. It did not have any effect on people with visas or green cards - aka, people who were coming home to the United States.

3. It led to actual reform of the refugee vetting process, which I suppose we will wait to see if Trump's plan does as well (in a constitutional manner).

4. Obama's hault was for one country for 60 days. Trump's is for 90 days for 6 countries, but Syria, who's citizens are in desperate need of aid, is indefinitely banned.

 

 

 

 

I agree about unconstitutional executive orders, it was my biggest complaint of the previous two Presidents as well.

 

However, I think by allowing even just one "refugee" (or immigrant of any sort into the country) that doesn't have the interest of the Constitution in their intentions is FAR more dangerous to the constitution than a temporary-ban and improved-vetting process.

 

We all have the Freedom of Religion, so if a certain refugee or immigrant supports oppressing people for choosing a different faction of Islam (which is sort of the big part of the issue) or for social freedoms we have here in the US, then they should not be allowed in. If they do not support the laws of the Constitution fully, then they should go elsewhere.... And if even just one Terrorist slips through the cracks, like what looks to be the case in Canada this weekend, then it undermines everyone's freedoms.

 

 

The Constitution allows people the freedom to not have the interests of the Constitution in mind. That's the beautiful thing about it. Obviously, we don't want terrorists here, and we don't want people who won't be law-abiding, but two things to that point:

 

1. Again - the refugee vetting is about as good as can be. 99.99999% of refugees who have made it here have been law-abiding citizens.

 

2. Freedom comes at the cost of safety. There is nothing stopping me from walking down the hall and murdering my office mates right now. We have to decide if safety is more important, because you can't have complete freedom and complete safety in the same social structure. It's impossible to be 100% certain that everyone here is 'good', that can't ever be achieved, so should we not let anyone in? I was under the assumption that freedom was the overriding quality we fought for in America. This EO and the arguments of many (not accusing you), seem to suggest that freedom should take a back seat to safety.

 

 

 

 

Also, to those accusing BRI of being personally responsible as a Trump voter, 3:43 here:

 

 

His ban of Iraqi immigrants was for 6 months from everything I've read. During a time we were at war in the region so I could see where folks might say that's dangerous as well because folks fleeing from there were in need of our assistance during that time. I think the green card thing was a disaster and that can't happen again.

 

In reference to the vetting process and the "good as it can be" comment. We need to constantly evaluate what we're doing here as a country in response to changing threats around the globe. Thinking like that can lead to problems and instead of saying that you should be asking, "can we do more to ensure our safety?" If this action leads to a safer nation then the process was worth evaluating. I do not like that folks that were "coming home" were affected by this situation. That was a major mess up in this situation regardless of whether they were checking their status again or not. That probably could've been done to some extent at the administrative level.

 

Lastly, thanks for the video, I think some folks need to watch that.

 

 

 

 

My problem is Democrats having acknowledge a few things here:

1. President Obama banned folks coming from Iraq for 6 months in 2011. Some of those not allowed in had helped our military in some capacity. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/barack-obama-ban-refugees-did-iraq-iraqi-muslim-trump-jimmy-carter-iran-iranian-immigration/

2. President Clinton even spoke along similar lines all the way back in 1995 from what I understand and wanted to get aggressive with terrorist issues. I've just seen some stuff pop up here and there. I was 15 so I don't remember the speech, just seen some headlines pop up so I could off on this.

3. This ban is for 90 days, not eternity, that hasn't been admitted by democrats. You are acting like it's the end of the world. If we can make our vetting process better, we need to.

 

 

 

The differences between Obama's ban and this one are as follows.

1. It was a response to a specific terrorist threat of Iraqis in Bowling Green who slipped in and were planning a plot.

2. It only effected refugees trying to gain asylum here. It did not have any effect on people with visas or green cards - aka, people who were coming home to the United States.

3. It led to actual reform of the refugee vetting process, which I suppose we will wait to see if Trump's plan does as well (in a constitutional manner).

4. Obama's hault was for one country for 60 days. Trump's is for 90 days for 6 countries, but Syria, who's citizens are in desperate need of aid, is indefinitely banned.

 

 

 

 

I agree about unconstitutional executive orders, it was my biggest complaint of the previous two Presidents as well.

 

However, I think by allowing even just one "refugee" (or immigrant of any sort into the country) that doesn't have the interest of the Constitution in their intentions is FAR more dangerous to the constitution than a temporary-ban and improved-vetting process.

 

We all have the Freedom of Religion, so if a certain refugee or immigrant supports oppressing people for choosing a different faction of Islam (which is sort of the big part of the issue) or for social freedoms we have here in the US, then they should not be allowed in. If they do not support the laws of the Constitution fully, then they should go elsewhere.... And if even just one Terrorist slips through the cracks, like what looks to be the case in Canada this weekend, then it undermines everyone's freedoms.

 

 

The Constitution allows people the freedom to not have the interests of the Constitution in mind. That's the beautiful thing about it. Obviously, we don't want terrorists here, and we don't want people who won't be law-abiding, but two things to that point:

 

1. Again - the refugee vetting is about as good as can be. 99.99999% of refugees who have made it here have been law-abiding citizens.

 

2. Freedom comes at the cost of safety. There is nothing stopping me from walking down the hall and murdering my office mates right now. We have to decide if safety is more important, because you can't have complete freedom and complete safety in the same social structure. It's impossible to be 100% certain that everyone here is 'good', that can't ever be achieved, so should we not let anyone in? I was under the assumption that freedom was the overriding quality we fought for in America. This EO and the arguments of many (not accusing you), seem to suggest that freedom should take a back seat to safety.

 

 

 

 

Also, to those accusing BRI of being personally responsible as a Trump voter, 3:43 here:

 

 

His ban of Iraqi immigrants was for 6 months from everything I've read. During a time we were at war in the region so I could see where folks might say that's dangerous as well because folks fleeing from there were in need of our assistance during that time. I think the green card thing was a disaster and that can't happen again.

 

In reference to the vetting process and the "good as it can be" comment. We need to constantly evaluate what we're doing here as a country in response to changing threats around the globe. Thinking like that can lead to problems and instead of saying that you should be asking, "can we do more to ensure our safety?" If this action leads to a safer nation then the process was worth evaluating. I do not like that folks that were "coming home" were affected by this situation. That was a major mess up in this situation regardless of whether they were checking their status again or not. That probably could've been done to some extent at the administrative level.

 

Lastly, thanks for the video, I think some folks need to watch that.

 

 

 

 

My problem is Democrats having acknowledge a few things here:

1. President Obama banned folks coming from Iraq for 6 months in 2011. Some of those not allowed in had helped our military in some capacity. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/barack-obama-ban-refugees-did-iraq-iraqi-muslim-trump-jimmy-carter-iran-iranian-immigration/

2. President Clinton even spoke along similar lines all the way back in 1995 from what I understand and wanted to get aggressive with terrorist issues. I've just seen some stuff pop up here and there. I was 15 so I don't remember the speech, just seen some headlines pop up so I could off on this.

3. This ban is for 90 days, not eternity, that hasn't been admitted by democrats. You are acting like it's the end of the world. If we can make our vetting process better, we need to.

 

 

 

The differences between Obama's ban and this one are as follows.

1. It was a response to a specific terrorist threat of Iraqis in Bowling Green who slipped in and were planning a plot.

2. It only effected refugees trying to gain asylum here. It did not have any effect on people with visas or green cards - aka, people who were coming home to the United States.

3. It led to actual reform of the refugee vetting process, which I suppose we will wait to see if Trump's plan does as well (in a constitutional manner).

4. Obama's hault was for one country for 60 days. Trump's is for 90 days for 6 countries, but Syria, who's citizens are in desperate need of aid, is indefinitely banned.

 

 

 

 

I agree about unconstitutional executive orders, it was my biggest complaint of the previous two Presidents as well.

 

However, I think by allowing even just one "refugee" (or immigrant of any sort into the country) that doesn't have the interest of the Constitution in their intentions is FAR more dangerous to the constitution than a temporary-ban and improved-vetting process.

 

We all have the Freedom of Religion, so if a certain refugee or immigrant supports oppressing people for choosing a different faction of Islam (which is sort of the big part of the issue) or for social freedoms we have here in the US, then they should not be allowed in. If they do not support the laws of the Constitution fully, then they should go elsewhere.... And if even just one Terrorist slips through the cracks, like what looks to be the case in Canada this weekend, then it undermines everyone's freedoms.

 

 

The Constitution allows people the freedom to not have the interests of the Constitution in mind. That's the beautiful thing about it. Obviously, we don't want terrorists here, and we don't want people who won't be law-abiding, but two things to that point:

 

1. Again - the refugee vetting is about as good as can be. 99.99999% of refugees who have made it here have been law-abiding citizens.

 

2. Freedom comes at the cost of safety. There is nothing stopping me from walking down the hall and murdering my office mates right now. We have to decide if safety is more important, because you can't have complete freedom and complete safety in the same social structure. It's impossible to be 100% certain that everyone here is 'good', that can't ever be achieved, so should we not let anyone in? I was under the assumption that freedom was the overriding quality we fought for in America. This EO and the arguments of many (not accusing you), seem to suggest that freedom should take a back seat to safety.

 

 

 

 

Also, to those accusing BRI of being personally responsible as a Trump voter, 3:43 here:

 

 

His ban of Iraqi immigrants was for 6 months from everything I've read. During a time we were at war in the region so I could see where folks might say that's dangerous as well because folks fleeing from there were in need of our assistance during that time. I think the green card thing was a disaster and that can't happen again.

 

In reference to the vetting process and the "good as it can be" comment. We need to constantly evaluate what we're doing here as a country in response to changing threats around the globe. Thinking like that can lead to problems and instead of saying that you should be asking, "can we do more to ensure our safety?" If this action leads to a safer nation then the process was worth evaluating. I do not like that folks that were "coming home" were affected by this situation. That was a major mess up in this situation regardless of whether they were checking their status again or not. That probably could've been done to some extent at the administrative level.

 

Lastly, thanks for the video, I think some folks need to watch that.

 

 

That was a horrible video; at no point did Stewart blame BRI so not worth watching ;)

 

Not picking on you BRI, but the question I and others are asking is HOW does this ban lead to improving our immigration vetting and WHY can't that be done without a unilateral ban? It seems like we can review our immigration procedures and improve our vetting without this ban. I am also not seeing any actual evidence for the direct threat every one of these countries poses.

 

I'm not trying to belabor the point or pick on you. I just see there being a difference between improving our vetting VS banning immigration/travel. There is nothing that is connecting one to the other atm...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BIGREDIOWAN    2,128

 

His ban of Iraqi immigrants was for 6 months from everything I've read. During a time we were at war in the region so I could see where folks might say that's dangerous as well because folks fleeing from there were in need of our assistance during that time. I think the green card thing was a disaster and that can't happen again.

I suspect Landlord's post covers these points, but anyway, Foreign Policy outlines the differences: http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

 

This is not a blanket defense of Obama doctrine, but it's the height of gaslighting on the part of the new administration to suggest it's in any way comparable. A specific counter to the part of your post I quoted:

 

Contrary to Trump's Sunday statement and the repeated claims of his defenders, the Obama administration did not ban visas for refugees from Iraq for six months. For one thing, refugees don't travel on visas. More importantly, while the flow of Iraqi refugees slowed significantly during the Obama administrations review, refugees continued to be admitted to the United States during that time, and there was not a single month in which no Iraqis arrived here. In other words, while there were delays in processing, there was no outright ban.

WaPo has its own article, calling Trump's claim "facile": https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/29/trumps-facile-claim-that-his-refugee-policy-is-similar-to-obama-in-2011/?utm_term=.96cbb60dc6bb

 

This is where the issues lies, you can post one thing, I can post another, so who's right? Hell if I know, but I'm not interested in spending a whole day posting link after link to articles when I'm simply not going to change my mind on some things until I decide to change it, that's my problem, no one else's. The important thing here to realize is I don't see where you're coming from, you don't see where I'm coming from. Our opinions are based on different experiences throughout our lives. We'll have to agree to disagree on some things. If a ban helps make our country safer through revisiting the vetting process and then moving forward with allowing folks to come back into the country then so be it. I'm certainly not okay with a permanent ban unless there is some VERY good reasons for it. I get some folks will be upset, but if making people feel warm and fuzzy by allowing folks in that we shouldn't have because we didn't want to upset some folks by not letting them in leads to innocent lives being taken..............I'm not okay with that either. I get there is a fine line, but my thought process may be different than others. I really don't read the news much anymore or watch it much anymore. Probably because years of seeing stuff go down on the TV, in reference to police, has turned me sour towards the press and what they report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zoogs    6,367

1. I think I agree with your first point. I'm not sure how this EO helps, but the fact that it's a Temporary order, and will no longer be in place by the time NU plays our spring game this year, makes me hopeful that something good will come of it.

Is it your position that nothing bad has come of it?

 

What is the "good" that is coming of it?

 

This is where the issues lies, you can post one thing, I can post another, so who's right?

This cannot be the response! Please, post another thing. It's not impossible to figure out who's right.

 

We are talking specifically about the facts of the Obama administration's actions. This is a yes-or-no proposition. I agree that opinions on Trump's current policies are another matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knapplc    19,300

 

1. I think I agree with your first point. I'm not sure how this EO helps, but the fact that it's a Temporary order, and will no longer be in place by the time NU plays our spring game this year, makes me hopeful that something good will come of it.

Is it your position that nothing bad has come of it?

 

What is the "good" that is coming of it?

 

This is where the issues lies, you can post one thing, I can post another, so who's right?

This cannot be the response! Please, post another thing. It's not impossible to figure out who's right.

 

We are talking specifically about the facts of the Obama administration's actions. This is a yes-or-no proposition. I agree that opinions on Trump's current policies are another matter.

 

And why do people think that a man who will bar refugees - men, women and children, and handcuff them, separate families, with no judicial review or oversight, no congressional review or oversight, no intelligence review or oversight, will actually stop this action, voluntarily, in 90 days?

 

What will happen in that 90 days to lift the ban? Why won't it be lengthened?

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.

×