Jump to content
knapplc

The Republican Utopia

Recommended Posts

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, no not really. Lean Manufacturing preaches continual improvement. You constantly should be evaluating processes to see if they can be improved on. At least good organizations do that.

 

We had a production process that has ran amazingly well for years. Sure, we improved here and there with little things. This year we went in and completely reevaluated the process and now we are seeing a 20-25% increase in production on that line. Most on our team thought that not possible when we started. If we had the idea of...."If it ain't broke don't fix it, we wouldn't have been able to do this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BRB/LOMS - Continuous improvement as a business practice is part of numerous certifications, audits, industry methodologies, etc. As you mentioned, the idea is to constantly evaluate if something can be done better. I have never seen it implemented in a way that halts the business or business function unless there is an actual egregious finding. The idea is assume success, check for failure.

 

If something is already at 99% efficient, how do you know that unless you are tracking based on a process of continuous improvement? If you have the key performance indicators in place, the evaluation is very easy to do real-time.

 

You are both correct from different sides of the coin, especially as comparing it back to our immigration policy ban. It could not more asinine ban based on a feeling nowhere rooted in fact.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quick question, what's everyone's problem with enforcing our immigration laws?

 

You mean our current laws or whatever it is Trump's trying to do? Because those are two very different things.

 

For example - Trump's Muslim ban excludes countries where he has business ties. Do you agree or disagree with this selective enforcement? Do you think this is an ethics violation?

 

 

I'm talking about deporting illegal immigrants. As for the so called 'Muslim ban', you could look at it from a business interest or that those countries are war zones. How do you vet a refugee from Syria for instance? It's nearly impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Quick question, what's everyone's problem with enforcing our immigration laws?

 

You mean our current laws or whatever it is Trump's trying to do? Because those are two very different things.

 

For example - Trump's Muslim ban excludes countries where he has business ties. Do you agree or disagree with this selective enforcement? Do you think this is an ethics violation?

 

 

I'm talking about deporting illegal immigrants. As for the so called 'Muslim ban', you could look at it from a business interest or that those countries are war zones. How do you vet a refugee from Syria for instance? It's nearly impossible.

 

 

Who has expressed a problem with deporting illegal immigrants?

 

You can look at a Muslim ban from any number of angles. The best one would be the human angle, as in, they're humans, they're suffering, if we can help then we should.

 

It isn't impossible to vet refugees from a war zone. It just takes work. That's a small price to pay to help someone whose life is on the line.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Quick question, what's everyone's problem with enforcing our immigration laws?

 

You mean our current laws or whatever it is Trump's trying to do? Because those are two very different things.

 

For example - Trump's Muslim ban excludes countries where he has business ties. Do you agree or disagree with this selective enforcement? Do you think this is an ethics violation?

 

 

I'm talking about deporting illegal immigrants. As for the so called 'Muslim ban', you could look at it from a business interest or that those countries are war zones. How do you vet a refugee from Syria for instance? It's nearly impossible.

 

 

Who has expressed a problem with deporting illegal immigrants?

 

You can look at a Muslim ban from any number of angles. The best one would be the human angle, as in, they're humans, they're suffering, if we can help then we should.

 

It isn't impossible to vet refugees from a war zone. It just takes work. That's a small price to pay to help someone whose life is on the line.

 

 

People express problems with deporting illegal immigrants all the time. It was a part of the Women Marches.

 

So how would you vet the refugees? Would you ask Syria's government for information about them? I'm asking these questions because I don't feel it's possible at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Quick question, what's everyone's problem with enforcing our immigration laws?

 

You mean our current laws or whatever it is Trump's trying to do? Because those are two very different things.

 

For example - Trump's Muslim ban excludes countries where he has business ties. Do you agree or disagree with this selective enforcement? Do you think this is an ethics violation?

 

 

I'm talking about deporting illegal immigrants. As for the so called 'Muslim ban', you could look at it from a business interest or that those countries are war zones. How do you vet a refugee from Syria for instance? It's nearly impossible.

 

 

Who has expressed a problem with deporting illegal immigrants?

 

You can look at a Muslim ban from any number of angles. The best one would be the human angle, as in, they're humans, they're suffering, if we can help then we should.

 

It isn't impossible to vet refugees from a war zone. It just takes work. That's a small price to pay to help someone whose life is on the line.

 

 

It is not an insurmountable problem, nor has it been. I have seen a few different numbers of terrorist that passed the vetting but should not have. Both sets of numbers are single-digits out of hundreds of thousands of people. We are talking on the order of 0.000007% of the total.

 

By comparison, our judicial system WRONGFULLY convicts between 0.025% and 0.00017% of those convicted in any given year. The most conservative number is 100x as many as wrongfully passed immigration vetting. Given so many more people wrongfully convicted, should we suspend our judicial system while we determine the efficacy? It is ludicrous.

 

I am not saying changes should not be made but to ban immigration from certain countries despite the facts is crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Quick question, what's everyone's problem with enforcing our immigration laws?

 

You mean our current laws or whatever it is Trump's trying to do? Because those are two very different things.

 

For example - Trump's Muslim ban excludes countries where he has business ties. Do you agree or disagree with this selective enforcement? Do you think this is an ethics violation?

 

 

I'm talking about deporting illegal immigrants. As for the so called 'Muslim ban', you could look at it from a business interest or that those countries are war zones. How do you vet a refugee from Syria for instance? It's nearly impossible.

 

 

Who has expressed a problem with deporting illegal immigrants?

 

You can look at a Muslim ban from any number of angles. The best one would be the human angle, as in, they're humans, they're suffering, if we can help then we should.

 

It isn't impossible to vet refugees from a war zone. It just takes work. That's a small price to pay to help someone whose life is on the line.

 

 

People express problems with deporting illegal immigrants all the time. It was a part of the Women Marches.

 

So how would you vet the refugees? Would you ask Syria's government for information about them? I'm asking these questions because I don't feel it's possible at this point.

 

 

 

I haven't heard that deporting illegals was a theme of the Women's Marches. Can't really comment on that.

 

I don't have any idea how to vet refugees. That's why we have professionals in place doing that work. I understand why you say it wouldn't be possible, and I'm sure it's super hard, but I'm sure they have solid methods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Quick question, what's everyone's problem with enforcing our immigration laws?

 

You mean our current laws or whatever it is Trump's trying to do? Because those are two very different things.

 

For example - Trump's Muslim ban excludes countries where he has business ties. Do you agree or disagree with this selective enforcement? Do you think this is an ethics violation?

 

 

I'm talking about deporting illegal immigrants. As for the so called 'Muslim ban', you could look at it from a business interest or that those countries are war zones. How do you vet a refugee from Syria for instance? It's nearly impossible.

 

 

Who has expressed a problem with deporting illegal immigrants?

 

You can look at a Muslim ban from any number of angles. The best one would be the human angle, as in, they're humans, they're suffering, if we can help then we should.

 

It isn't impossible to vet refugees from a war zone. It just takes work. That's a small price to pay to help someone whose life is on the line.

 

 

People express problems with deporting illegal immigrants all the time. It was a part of the Women Marches.

 

So how would you vet the refugees? Would you ask Syria's government for information about them? I'm asking these questions because I don't feel it's possible at this point.

 

 

 

I haven't heard that deporting illegals was a theme of the Women's Marches. Can't really comment on that.

 

 

 

 

Rooted in the promise of America’s call for huddled masses yearning to breathe free, we believe in immigrant and refugee rights regardless of status or country of origin. We believe migration is a human right and that no human being is illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Quick question, what's everyone's problem with enforcing our immigration laws?

 

You mean our current laws or whatever it is Trump's trying to do? Because those are two very different things.

 

For example - Trump's Muslim ban excludes countries where he has business ties. Do you agree or disagree with this selective enforcement? Do you think this is an ethics violation?

 

 

I'm talking about deporting illegal immigrants. As for the so called 'Muslim ban', you could look at it from a business interest or that those countries are war zones. How do you vet a refugee from Syria for instance? It's nearly impossible.

 

 

Who has expressed a problem with deporting illegal immigrants?

 

You can look at a Muslim ban from any number of angles. The best one would be the human angle, as in, they're humans, they're suffering, if we can help then we should.

 

It isn't impossible to vet refugees from a war zone. It just takes work. That's a small price to pay to help someone whose life is on the line.

 

 

People express problems with deporting illegal immigrants all the time. It was a part of the Women Marches.

 

So how would you vet the refugees? Would you ask Syria's government for information about them? I'm asking these questions because I don't feel it's possible at this point.

 

No, it wasn't at the Marches. The absolute opposite was though. ALCU and many others supporting immigration rights and protections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

My feelings have extremely little to do with anything Trump has done. If anything, the fact that Trump wants to do this makes me more skeptical. However, I do find it highly plausible that the previous administration did not place as high a level of importance on assuring that these vetting procedures were thorough and being fully implemented. I will acknowledge that what they have been doing must be fairly effective though. The flow chart that Q posted would appear to be a fairly thorough vetting but I am not opposed to reviewing it and making reasonable adjustments if any are identified as making it better. I am hopeful that all of these reset and review efforts will be temporary in nature. Maybe they (Trump) will discover that a lot of the nonsense he has been spewing is mostly baseless. Maybe it is all for show. It just strikes me that he may just being extremely thorough in his approach. I guess I do like that he's actually doing something visible. Seems too many of these characters get to Washington and just settle in to the status quo without questioning much of anything. And yes, I understand the elevated level of concern with manner in which he presents these things and that he may not be receiving the checks and balances with the R controlled congress. But I'm still holding out hope that it may not be all as bad as it potentially may end up being and hopefully nowhere near as bad as so many around here are fearing.

 

If my logic that people coming in record numbers from war torn countries that harbor large numbers of terrorists and ISIS elements is potentially more dangerous than allowing people from other more western friendly locales, then that is all on me and it has nothing to do with Trump spouting stuff. I feel no need to bend over backwards and ignore my common sense in an effort to prove that we're somehow better or more accepting than other countries.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, no not really. Lean Manufacturing preaches continual improvement. You constantly should be evaluating processes to see if they can be improved on. At least good organizations do that.

 

We had a production process that has ran amazingly well for years. Sure, we improved here and there with little things. This year we went in and completely reevaluated the process and now we are seeing a 20-25% increase in production on that line. Most on our team thought that not possible when we started. If we had the idea of...."If it ain't broke don't fix it, we wouldn't have been able to do this.

 

 

 

Did you miss the part where I referenced 99% efficiency? :lol:

 

I mean, yeah, if we can get to 125% efficiency of keeping terrorists out, let's do it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So how would you vet the refugees? Would you ask Syria's government for information about them? I'm asking these questions because I don't feel it's possible at this point.

 

 

 

I would do it like this, since it seems to be incredibly effective:

 

 

wh_blog_refugee_workflow_1125.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disclaimer: Just going from memory, so please forgive me if I'm wrong. I'll try to find articles to add in edit to support this post.

 

ISIS and Terrorism are big deals and need to be considered by the Administration. I agree wholeheartedly with that. That said, I fail to see the connection (being somewhat facetious here) between refugees of these countries and terrorist attacks around the globe. Yes, violence in Syria or Iraq will more than likely be committed by Syrians and Iraqis. However, our "fear" is of terrorist attacks, not acts of battle in a civil war.

 

Instead of limiting the amount of refugees from Syria and Iraq, shouldn't the US focus more on limiting immigrants/tourists from France, Belgium, and Germany; since these are the national origins of the terrorists committing acts of terror in Europe? If we are going to base restrictions on immigration because of nationalities of terrorists that would be wise. But since most of the immigrant/tourists from these European countries aren't Muslim, they are okay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, no not really. Lean Manufacturing preaches continual improvement. You constantly should be evaluating processes to see if they can be improved on. At least good organizations do that.

 

We had a production process that has ran amazingly well for years. Sure, we improved here and there with little things. This year we went in and completely reevaluated the process and now we are seeing a 20-25% increase in production on that line. Most on our team thought that not possible when we started. If we had the idea of...."If it ain't broke don't fix it, we wouldn't have been able to do this.

 

Did you miss the part where I referenced 99% efficiency? :lol:

 

I mean, yeah, if we can get to 125% efficiency of keeping terrorists out, let's do it.

 

You obviously didn't understand my post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quick question, what's everyone's problem with enforcing our immigration laws?

You mean our current laws or whatever it is Trump's trying to do? Because those are two very different things.

 

For example - Trump's Muslim ban excludes countries where he has business ties. Do you agree or disagree with this selective enforcement? Do you think this is an ethics violation?

 

I'm talking about deporting illegal immigrants. As for the so called 'Muslim ban', you could look at it from a business interest or that those countries are war zones. How do you vet a refugee from Syria for instance? It's nearly impossible.

 

Who has expressed a problem with deporting illegal immigrants?

 

You can look at a Muslim ban from any number of angles. The best one would be the human angle, as in, they're humans, they're suffering, if we can help then we should.

 

It isn't impossible to vet refugees from a war zone. It just takes work. That's a small price to pay to help someone whose life is on the line.

 

People express problems with deporting illegal immigrants all the time. It was a part of the Women Marches.

 

So how would you vet the refugees? Would you ask Syria's government for information about them? I'm asking these questions because I don't feel it's possible at this point.

 

 

I haven't heard that deporting illegals was a theme of the Women's Marches. Can't really comment on that.

 

Rooted in the promise of America’s call for huddled masses yearning to breathe free, we believe in immigrant and refugee rights regardless of status or country of origin. We believe migration is a human right and that no human being is illegal.

https://www.womensmarch.com/principles/

 

 

Interesting.

 

A couple of thoughts on that.

 

First, it's a bit Pollyannish to think that everyone is going to be good all the time. JJ/El Diaco has said as much with his comments about immigration, and he's right. There WILL be bad people amongst the good that we allow to immigrate or grant safe harbor to as refugees. There will be collateral damage in allowing people into this country.

 

Second - isn't bravery in the face of danger what makes America great? Don't we have to allow the "huddled masses, yearning to breathe free" into the country en masse, knowing that amongst those hordes will be bad guys, with the intention to save as many innocents as we can, damning the baddies?

 

I mean, are we or are we not "the land of the free" and "the home of the brave?"

 

Are those just words, or who we are? Because if those are just words... then who and what are we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of limiting the amount of refugees from Syria and Iraq, shouldn't the US focus more on limiting immigrants/tourists from France, Belgium, and Germany; since these are the national origins of the terrorists committing acts of terror in Europe? If we are going to base restrictions on immigration because of nationalities of terrorists that would be wise. But since most of the immigrant/tourists from these European countries aren't Muslim, they are okay?

 

 

Yes, it should. Unfortunately, that doesn't work within the fear-mongering conservative media bullet point hot topic.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quick question, what's everyone's problem with enforcing our immigration laws?

You mean our current laws or whatever it is Trump's trying to do? Because those are two very different things.

 

For example - Trump's Muslim ban excludes countries where he has business ties. Do you agree or disagree with this selective enforcement? Do you think this is an ethics violation?

 

I'm talking about deporting illegal immigrants. As for the so called 'Muslim ban', you could look at it from a business interest or that those countries are war zones. How do you vet a refugee from Syria for instance? It's nearly impossible.

 

Who has expressed a problem with deporting illegal immigrants?

 

You can look at a Muslim ban from any number of angles. The best one would be the human angle, as in, they're humans, they're suffering, if we can help then we should.

 

It isn't impossible to vet refugees from a war zone. It just takes work. That's a small price to pay to help someone whose life is on the line.

 

People express problems with deporting illegal immigrants all the time. It was a part of the Women Marches.

 

So how would you vet the refugees? Would you ask Syria's government for information about them? I'm asking these questions because I don't feel it's possible at this point.

 

 

I haven't heard that deporting illegals was a theme of the Women's Marches. Can't really comment on that.

 

Rooted in the promise of America’s call for huddled masses yearning to breathe free, we believe in immigrant and refugee rights regardless of status or country of origin. We believe migration is a human right and that no human being is illegal.

https://www.womensmarch.com/principles/

 

 

Interesting.

 

A couple of thoughts on that.

 

First, it's a bit Pollyannish to think that everyone is going to be good all the time. JJ/El Diaco has said as much with his comments about immigration, and he's right. There WILL be bad people amongst the good that we allow to immigrate or grant safe harbor to as refugees. There will be collateral damage in allowing people into this country.

 

Second - isn't bravery in the face of danger what makes America great? Don't we have to allow the "huddled masses, yearning to breathe free" into the country en masse, knowing that amongst those hordes will be bad guys, with the intention to save as many innocents as we can, damning the baddies?

 

I mean, are we or are we not "the land of the free" and "the home of the brave?"

 

Are those just words, or who we are? Because if those are just words... then who and what are we?

 

 

The words I quoted were advocating open borders if you ask me. I can't see it as anything else. "We believe that migration is a human right and that no human being is illegal." In fact, looking at their platform, it's pretty clear it's a progressive movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are too many White people in France, Belgium and Germany. So it's out of the question.

 

Yep, and people like you are partly the reason Trump has been elected, IMO. Instead of understanding that people might be worried, legitimately or not(that's debatable), about Muslim extremists coming into the country and perhaps committing terrorist acts, the left calls them racist. Maybe if the media didn't constantly show the despicable things that ISIS has done in Syria and Iraq(beheadings, throwing gays off buildings, having their children behead prisoners, burning people alive etc etc) people wouldn't be worried about it. But nope, that's not why some want to make sure we can properly vet people coming from these countries, nope, theyre racist...that's why.

 

Pro-life? Sexist. If you're a female and you are pro-life, youre painted as being oppressed by your husband.

 

Want to enforce immigration laws? Racist.

 

Pro law enforcement? Racist. On the women's march website, they talk about ending violence. What violence? We believe in accountability and justice in cases of police brutality and ending racial profiling and targeting of communities of color. "

 

 

There are independents out there, you know, who agree with a lot of progressive platforms, but maybe they feel immigration should be enforced and maybe they are concerned about bringing in refugees from Muslim states that are currently war zones. But maybe they agree with the environmental concerns, think we need to take care of those that are economically suffering, are pro-union... but because they disagree with you about one thing, you paint them as racist. That kind of attitude, I think, is partially responsible for Trump. I think a lot of people got tired of the left calling them racist, sexist etc for not agreeing with parts of their agenda.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm independent, and I'm not calling "them" racist (as in a bunch of Americans). Not sure how you made that leap. I'm calling Trump and his inner circle racist, since he made this decision.

 

That said, how many Americans have been killed by ISIS or ISIS sympathizers? Look at that number and then think of our obsession. It's been shown over and over how hard it is for people to be allowed to come to the U.S. It's already difficult as hell.

 

Also, look up how many Ukrainian civilians have been killed by Russia and compare it to how many Europeans have been killed by ISIS.

 

It's hard for me to see that and not think the problem is more with their religion/skin color.

 

ISIS is a huge problem in the middle east and it needs to be dealt with but I'm tired of the fear mongering in the U.S. about Arabs and Muslims.

 

 

 

And, you're seriously asking about "what violence" when looking at the Women's March website and don't get it? I don't get your question. You think violence against women is a thing in the past?

 

And do you think it wasn't topical for them?

 

"The administration is looking to eliminate all 25 grant programs that are managed by the Justice Departments Office of Violence Against Women."

 

I'm pro-life, btw.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Instead of limiting the amount of refugees from Syria and Iraq, shouldn't the US focus more on limiting immigrants/tourists from France, Belgium, and Germany; since these are the national origins of the terrorists committing acts of terror in Europe? If we are going to base restrictions on immigration because of nationalities of terrorists that would be wise. But since most of the immigrant/tourists from these European countries aren't Muslim, they are okay?

 

 

Yes, it should. Unfortunately, that doesn't work within the fear-mongering conservative media bullet point hot topic.

 

 

 

There are too many White people in France, Belgium and Germany. So it's out of the question.

Kinda what I was hinting at ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, and people like you are partly the reason Trump has been elected, IMO. Instead of understanding that people might be worried, legitimately or not(that's debatable), about Muslim extremists coming into the country and perhaps committing terrorist acts, the left calls them racist.

 

 

First of all, people are not legitimately worried, because there is no evidence of anything to be worried about. It's really not debatable - any reason why you should be worried isn't based off actual data or relativistic assumed risk, but is based off talking point.

 

Second, while people that are worried are probably for the most part good, honest, caring people, the fact that they are worried about something they shouldn't be worried about directly related to ethnic/racial/religious minorities, ends up contributing to a social system where muslims are not equal. So even though I have no interest calling those people racists, the end result of their misguided opinions contributes to racism.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

What did you imagine, out of curiosity, and why?

I figured the Bill of rights to be decimated i.e. speech, guns, due process etc., government control over personal property and the like. The rhetoric the dems were throwing with the help of main stream media and hollywood. It had seemed as if Obama was going to have carte blanche with his agenda, and the "right" could pound sand

 

 

I recall the rhetoric over Obama/Dems & 2nd Amendment issues. Outside of massively unfounded propaganda, I do not recall anything Obama actually said in his campaign to justify his wanting to dismantle any of the other Amendments. What specifically made you believe the bolded?

 

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Speech, and the Press

Amendment 2 - The Right to Bear Arms

Amendment 3 - The Housing of Soldiers

Amendment 4 - Protection from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures

Amendment 5 - Protection of Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property

Amendment 6 - Rights of Accused Persons in Criminal Cases

Amendment 7 - Rights in Civil Cases

Amendment 8 - Excessive Bail, Fines, and Punishments Forbidden

Amendment 9 - Other Rights Kept by the People

Amendment 10 - Undelegated Powers Kept by the States and the People

 

 

This article sums it up fairly good

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-obama-legacy-an-assault-on-the-bill-of-rights/article/2601342

 

 

That was an article written in 2016 and takes a lot of liberties besides being way after either of Obama's elections. To be more explicit in my original question: During the 2008 and/or 2012 Presidential election cycles, what specifically did Obama say/do that made you believe he would be dismantling the Bill of Rights as you believed? I am trying to understand at the time cast your vote; anecdotal answer is fine...

 

I am not trying to pick on you and you are welcome to ignore this. I am interested in your response if you are willing to continue...

 

Trying to remember 2008... :blink: Hindsight is 20/20 so they say.

I believe it was his views towards the wars ,universal healthcare being forced upon everyone that i disliked the most, plus his "acquaintances" that had anti American leanings like bill ayers ,jeremiah wright. So at the time ,that was enough reason for me.

 

would've replied sooner but I caught the flu bug..yay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That was an article written in 2016 and takes a lot of liberties besides being way after either of Obama's elections. To be more explicit in my original question: During the 2008 and/or 2012 Presidential election cycles, what specifically did Obama say/do that made you believe he would be dismantling the Bill of Rights as you believed? I am trying to understand at the time cast your vote; anecdotal answer is fine...

 

I am not trying to pick on you and you are welcome to ignore this. I am interested in your response if you are willing to continue...

Trying to remember 2008... :blink: Hindsight is 20/20 so they say.

I believe it was his views towards the wars ,universal healthcare being forced upon everyone that i disliked the most, plus his "acquaintances" that had anti American leanings like bill ayers ,jeremiah wright. So at the time ,that was enough reason for me.

 

would've replied sooner but I caught the flu bug..yay

 

Do you have the same fears about Trump now that he's going to be shoving this wall down our throats? Or is this not a throat-shove? And while Obama had "acquaintances" that concerned people, Trump has put people like Bannon in the White House and wants to add people like DeVos to his Cabinet. Are those more concerning, since rather than just acquaintances, these are policy-makers and major players in Trump's government?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So my turn to stir the pot. Has anyone bothered checking to see if any other presidents have banned immigration? FDR is a gimme, so that doesn't count.

 

Immigration really wasn't halted under FDR inasmuch as international travel was not really possible. The Bracero program basically removed the border with Mexico to increase non-immigrant laborers to replace agricultural workers lost to the war effort.

 

Off the top of my head, there was the Chinese exclusion act, I believe in the 1800s there was something to limit Southern Europeans (might just be quota system), and then a temporary halt post-9/11 but the latter was more of a travel issue. Will add links when I get back...

 

And that's answering my other post even if Knapp stole my thunder a bit ;) Hope you're feeling better.

 

EDIT:

Here's some links, outright bans are absent in the modern era, few & far between before that at a Federal level. In the 1800s, a lot of states passed immigration but those were eliminated by the Supreme Court as a Federal responsibility.

 

http://www.fairus.org/facts/us_laws

https://www.uscis.gov/history-and-genealogy/our-history/agency-history/early-american-immigration-policies

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

http://cis.org/ImmigrationHistoryOverview

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So my turn to stir the pot. Has anyone bothered checking to see if any other presidents have banned immigration? FDR is a gimme, so that doesn't count.

 

There is this, but most of these examples don't equate to what Trump is proposing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do actually. Any human with great power should be under some sort of scrutiny.

 

Im not that concerned with DeVos, her known policies dont raise my eyebrows. Bannon ruined what Breitbart used to be. But neither was convicted of blowing up govt buildings.

 

 

Replying to Knapp , forgot to quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the litmus test of concern is blowing up government buildings, we've set an exceedingly low bar.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Donald Trump: The Religious Right's Trojan Horse

 

There's a lot in this article. One passage that caught my eye is this one. It describes the way the Justice Department was transformed under Bush (that guy we're missing all of a sudden?), something that is at risk to happen once again. If not because it is Trump's personal mission -- on some level I doubt it is -- then because it is the objective of those he trusts with power.

 

 

“The division is bringing fewer voting rights and employment cases involving systematic discrimination against African-Americans and more alleging reverse discrimination against whites and religious discrimination against Christians,” reported Charlie Savage, then with The Boston Globe (now at The Times), in 2006. Something similar can be expected under Mr. Sessions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So my turn to stir the pot. Has anyone bothered checking to see if any other presidents have banned immigration? FDR is a gimme, so that doesn't count.

 

Immigration really wasn't halted under FDR inasmuch as international travel was not really possible. The Bracero program basically removed the border with Mexico to increase non-immigrant laborers to replace agricultural workers lost to the war effort.

 

Off the top of my head, there was the Chinese exclusion act, I believe in the 1800s there was something to limit Southern Europeans (might just be quota system), and then a temporary halt post-9/11 but the latter was more of a travel issue. Will add links when I get back...

 

And that's answering my other post even if Knapp stole my thunder a bit ;) Hope you're feeling better.

 

EDIT:

Here's some links, outright bans are absent in the modern era, few & far between before that at a Federal level. In the 1800s, a lot of states passed immigration but those were eliminated by the Supreme Court as a Federal responsibility.

 

http://www.fairus.org/facts/us_laws

https://www.uscis.gov/history-and-genealogy/our-history/agency-history/early-american-immigration-policies

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

http://cis.org/ImmigrationHistoryOverview

 

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/25/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-aliens-subject-united-nations

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/04/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants-and-nonimmigrants-

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/04/23/executive-order-blocking-property-and-suspending-entry-united-states-cer

 

To be honest, I dont think bans work. There have been cases of homegrown terrorists already, they dont have to be imported. One of the dangers of living in a free society.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I dont think bans work. There have been cases of homegrown terrorists already, they dont have to be imported. One of the dangers of living in a free society.

I absolutely agree with this. Right on. :thumbs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So my turn to stir the pot. Has anyone bothered checking to see if any other presidents have banned immigration? FDR is a gimme, so that doesn't count.

 

Immigration really wasn't halted under FDR inasmuch as international travel was not really possible. The Bracero program basically removed the border with Mexico to increase non-immigrant laborers to replace agricultural workers lost to the war effort.

 

Off the top of my head, there was the Chinese exclusion act, I believe in the 1800s there was something to limit Southern Europeans (might just be quota system), and then a temporary halt post-9/11 but the latter was more of a travel issue. Will add links when I get back...

 

And that's answering my other post even if Knapp stole my thunder a bit ;) Hope you're feeling better.

 

EDIT:

Here's some links, outright bans are absent in the modern era, few & far between before that at a Federal level. In the 1800s, a lot of states passed immigration but those were eliminated by the Supreme Court as a Federal responsibility.

 

http://www.fairus.org/facts/us_laws

https://www.uscis.gov/history-and-genealogy/our-history/agency-history/early-american-immigration-policies

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

http://cis.org/ImmigrationHistoryOverview

 

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/25/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-aliens-subject-united-nations

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/04/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants-and-nonimmigrants-

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/04/23/executive-order-blocking-property-and-suspending-entry-united-states-cer

 

To be honest, I dont think bans work. There have been cases of homegrown terrorists already, they dont have to be imported. One of the dangers of living in a free society.

 

 

Those are not outright immigration bans by the POTUS.

 

One is an order supporting UN travel ban and sanctions. The other two are excluding individuals who committed specific intolerable acts.

 

None of these are the POTUS banning immigration, definitely not arbitrarily banning ALL immigration from specific country.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Donald Trump: The Religious Right's Trojan Horse

 

There's a lot in this article. One passage that caught my eye is this one. It describes the way the Justice Department was transformed under Bush (that guy we're missing all of a sudden?), something that is at risk to happen once again. If not because it is Trump's personal mission -- on some level I doubt it is -- then because it is the objective of those he trusts with power.

 

 

“The division is bringing fewer voting rights and employment cases involving systematic discrimination against African-Americans and more alleging reverse discrimination against whites and religious discrimination against Christians,” reported Charlie Savage, then with The Boston Globe (now at The Times), in 2006. Something similar can be expected under Mr. Sessions.

 

I never bought into Trump being a christian. Especially after he said "two Corinthians" speaking at a christian university .

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

So my turn to stir the pot. Has anyone bothered checking to see if any other presidents have banned immigration? FDR is a gimme, so that doesn't count.

 

Immigration really wasn't halted under FDR inasmuch as international travel was not really possible. The Bracero program basically removed the border with Mexico to increase non-immigrant laborers to replace agricultural workers lost to the war effort.

 

Off the top of my head, there was the Chinese exclusion act, I believe in the 1800s there was something to limit Southern Europeans (might just be quota system), and then a temporary halt post-9/11 but the latter was more of a travel issue. Will add links when I get back...

 

And that's answering my other post even if Knapp stole my thunder a bit ;) Hope you're feeling better.

 

EDIT:

Here's some links, outright bans are absent in the modern era, few & far between before that at a Federal level. In the 1800s, a lot of states passed immigration but those were eliminated by the Supreme Court as a Federal responsibility.

 

http://www.fairus.org/facts/us_laws

https://www.uscis.gov/history-and-genealogy/our-history/agency-history/early-american-immigration-policies

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

http://cis.org/ImmigrationHistoryOverview

 

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/25/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-aliens-subject-united-nations

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/04/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants-and-nonimmigrants-

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/04/23/executive-order-blocking-property-and-suspending-entry-united-states-cer

 

To be honest, I dont think bans work. There have been cases of homegrown terrorists already, they dont have to be imported. One of the dangers of living in a free society.

 

 

Those are not outright immigration bans by the POTUS.

 

One is an order supporting UN travel ban and sanctions. The other two are excluding individuals who committed specific intolerable acts.

 

None of these are the POTUS banning immigration, definitely not arbitrarily banning ALL immigration from specific country.

 

I don't want to get into an argument over semantics, but they were still officially trying to keep people from entering the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

So my turn to stir the pot. Has anyone bothered checking to see if any other presidents have banned immigration? FDR is a gimme, so that doesn't count.

 

Immigration really wasn't halted under FDR inasmuch as international travel was not really possible. The Bracero program basically removed the border with Mexico to increase non-immigrant laborers to replace agricultural workers lost to the war effort.

 

Off the top of my head, there was the Chinese exclusion act, I believe in the 1800s there was something to limit Southern Europeans (might just be quota system), and then a temporary halt post-9/11 but the latter was more of a travel issue. Will add links when I get back...

 

And that's answering my other post even if Knapp stole my thunder a bit ;) Hope you're feeling better.

 

EDIT:

Here's some links, outright bans are absent in the modern era, few & far between before that at a Federal level. In the 1800s, a lot of states passed immigration but those were eliminated by the Supreme Court as a Federal responsibility.

 

http://www.fairus.org/facts/us_laws

https://www.uscis.gov/history-and-genealogy/our-history/agency-history/early-american-immigration-policies

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

http://cis.org/ImmigrationHistoryOverview

 

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/25/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-aliens-subject-united-nations

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/04/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants-and-nonimmigrants-

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/04/23/executive-order-blocking-property-and-suspending-entry-united-states-cer

 

To be honest, I dont think bans work. There have been cases of homegrown terrorists already, they dont have to be imported. One of the dangers of living in a free society.

 

 

Those are not outright immigration bans by the POTUS.

 

One is an order supporting UN travel ban and sanctions. The other two are excluding individuals who committed specific intolerable acts.

 

None of these are the POTUS banning immigration, definitely not arbitrarily banning ALL immigration from specific country.

 

I don't want to get into an argument over semantics, but they were still officially trying to keep people from entering the country.

 

 

So having specific requirements an individual needs to meet to immigrate to this country is functionally equivalent to banning say ALL immigration into this country? I am not trying to be difficult, I just do not see how that is semantics...

 

Managing immigration is way different than banning it. It is the difference between say having felony convictions or never being arrested... I appreciate your thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I'M not trying to be difficult, but Husker Red Til Dead and ColoNoCoHusker, one of you has to get a new avatar. I'll even make it for you if you know what you want. :D

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

So my turn to stir the pot. Has anyone bothered checking to see if any other presidents have banned immigration? FDR is a gimme, so that doesn't count.

 

Immigration really wasn't halted under FDR inasmuch as international travel was not really possible. The Bracero program basically removed the border with Mexico to increase non-immigrant laborers to replace agricultural workers lost to the war effort.

 

Off the top of my head, there was the Chinese exclusion act, I believe in the 1800s there was something to limit Southern Europeans (might just be quota system), and then a temporary halt post-9/11 but the latter was more of a travel issue. Will add links when I get back...

 

And that's answering my other post even if Knapp stole my thunder a bit ;) Hope you're feeling better.

 

EDIT:

Here's some links, outright bans are absent in the modern era, few & far between before that at a Federal level. In the 1800s, a lot of states passed immigration but those were eliminated by the Supreme Court as a Federal responsibility.

 

http://www.fairus.org/facts/us_laws

https://www.uscis.gov/history-and-genealogy/our-history/agency-history/early-american-immigration-policies

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

http://cis.org/ImmigrationHistoryOverview

 

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/25/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-aliens-subject-united-nations

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/04/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants-and-nonimmigrants-

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/04/23/executive-order-blocking-property-and-suspending-entry-united-states-cer

 

To be honest, I dont think bans work. There have been cases of homegrown terrorists already, they dont have to be imported. One of the dangers of living in a free society.

 

 

Those are not outright immigration bans by the POTUS.

 

One is an order supporting UN travel ban and sanctions. The other two are excluding individuals who committed specific intolerable acts.

 

None of these are the POTUS banning immigration, definitely not arbitrarily banning ALL immigration from specific country.

 

I don't want to get into an argument over semantics, but they were still officially trying to keep people from entering the country.

 

 

So having specific requirements an individual needs to meet to immigrate to this country is functionally equivalent to banning say ALL immigration into this country? I am not trying to be difficult, I just do not see how that is semantics...

 

Managing immigration is way different than banning it. It is the difference between say having felony convictions or never being arrested... I appreciate your thoughts.

 

 

My point was that we have had immigration restrictions before. A ban is still a ban ,even if its only for say, men of a certain age, etc .etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Donald Trump: The Religious Right's Trojan Horse

 

There's a lot in this article. One passage that caught my eye is this one. It describes the way the Justice Department was transformed under Bush (that guy we're missing all of a sudden?), something that is at risk to happen once again. If not because it is Trump's personal mission -- on some level I doubt it is -- then because it is the objective of those he trusts with power.

 

 

“The division is bringing fewer voting rights and employment cases involving systematic discrimination against African-Americans and more alleging reverse discrimination against whites and religious discrimination against Christians,” reported Charlie Savage, then with The Boston Globe (now at The Times), in 2006. Something similar can be expected under Mr. Sessions.

 

 

 

Kander is a good egg. I hope he stays active in politics. We could use more like him in the system.

 

I fully expect Sessions to avoid voting rights cases and veer the other direction the behest of his new boss.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are the Syrians coming to America even immigrants? Or are they refugees? Because there's a distinction, and that would throw a wrench into the (weird) claim more Muslims immigrated to America than Christians.I'd also, still, like to know why we're drawing a distinction between religions.

Sorry, I just noticed this question went unanswered.

I wasn't the one drawing the religion distinction. That was text I copied and pasted from the linked source. I don't know why the US government started making religious affiliation data available in 2002. Maybe we should ask NoCo, he's up to date on federal regulations and such. (Sorry, still being snarky) As for me, I've never understood why, in a country where these protected status things aren't supposed to matter, those are always the first questions on virtually any federal form. And it's been that way for a long, long time. If it doesn't matter, why ask?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for me, I've never understood why, in a country where these protected status things aren't supposed to matter, those are always the first questions on virtually any federal form. And it's been that way for a long, long time. If it doesn't matter, why ask?

I have to say, I don't know why a lot of things are on a lot of forms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As for me, I've never understood why, in a country where these protected status things aren't supposed to matter, those are always the first questions on virtually any federal form. And it's been that way for a long, long time. If it doesn't matter, why ask?

I have to say, I don't know why a lot of things are on a lot of forms.

 

If the Feds don't ask, they can't keep stats on all kinds of things, like crimes for example. It's not just about a crime being committed, it's about who's committing those crimes, where they're congregated, stuff like that. They can put a stronger police presence in areas that need it.

 

Now, don't run with that specific ball because it happened to be the first example that popped in my head. Here's another: Whether you know it or not, the cookies on your computer are collecting data about you every time you click a page. They use that data to tailor ads to you. The Feds use the data from those forms to tailor aid to areas where it will be most effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Are the Syrians coming to America even immigrants? Or are they refugees? Because there's a distinction, and that would throw a wrench into the (weird) claim more Muslims immigrated to America than Christians.I'd also, still, like to know why we're drawing a distinction between religions.

Sorry, I just noticed this question went unanswered.

I wasn't the one drawing the religion distinction. That was text I copied and pasted from the linked source. I don't know why the US government started making religious affiliation data available in 2002. Maybe we should ask NoCo, he's up to date on federal regulations and such. (Sorry, still being snarky) As for me, I've never understood why, in a country where these protected status things aren't supposed to matter, those are always the first questions on virtually any federal form. And it's been that way for a long, long time. If it doesn't matter, why ask?

 

No worries. I wasn't directing that question at you, just asking in general. CNCH answered me on the last page. It's a good conversation, if you missed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

And, you're seriously asking about "what violence" when looking at the Women's March website and don't get it? I don't get your question. You think violence against women is a thing in the past?

 

And do you think it wasn't topical for them?

 

"The administration is looking to eliminate all 25 grant programs that are managed by the Justice Departments Office of Violence Against Women."

 

I'm pro-life, btw.

 

Sorry, you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying "what violence?" in terms of women. I was talking about the website focusing on police violence as if it's some sort of epidemic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

And, you're seriously asking about "what violence" when looking at the Women's March website and don't get it? I don't get your question. You think violence against women is a thing in the past?

 

And do you think it wasn't topical for them?

 

"The administration is looking to eliminate all 25 grant programs that are managed by the Justice Departments Office of Violence Against Women."

 

I'm pro-life, btw.

Sorry, you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying "what violence?" in terms of women. I was talking about the website focusing on police violence as if it's some sort of epidemic.

My bad, but it's weird that people pretend it's not an issue at all by saying things like "what violence?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I challenge anyone skeptical of the US vetting process already in place (looking at you, ED) to read that piece with an open mind. Really, everyone should read it.

It's a recollection of the process of going through the vetting process by a Syrain refugee who lived it. It really sheds light on how profoundly ignorant our new leader was when he led people over the "“People are pouring in from regions of the Middle East. We have no idea who they are, where they come from" cliff.

 

Some things that really stood out to me:

 

 

My family grew accustomed to waiting – who knew when we would receive the next phone call? Maybe if we were rejected, we never would be told? I now know that as the months rolled by, I was being screened by any number of U.S. agencies, such as the State Department, the FBI and the National Counterterrorism Center, to name a few. For cases of Syrian refugees specifically, the Department of Homeland Security conducts an enhanced review.

 

Syrian refugees were in fact treated more carefully than other immigrants.

 

 

Finally, after nearly a year and a half of being poked and prodded, physically and figuratively, I had been given clearance to start a new life in the United States. The U.S. government by then had a complete picture of who I am and who I’ve been. Getting through the five interviews was truly an exercise of autobiography, and if you told me beforehand the depth and breadth of United States’ vetting process, I probably wouldn’t have believed you. It was definitely extreme.

 

But not everyone in my family was given the same offer to move to the U.S. Only my sister and I were granted the opportunity, and my sister decided she didn’t want to part with her parents and other siblings. As for my mom and the others, after the final interview, they never heard back from the American resettlement agency. Luckily, they eventually received offers from other countries; my mom, my brother and one of my sisters are in Sweden, I have another sister in Germany, and my father is still in Turkey but hopes to join my mom in Sweden soon.

 

People don't just "pour" in. In this fellow's case, only two members of his family were granted a new life here. Only one of them took the opportunity. The rest found asylum throughout Europe. Hopefully the father does as well.

 

 

President Trump knows both who I am and where I’m from, and a whole lot more. If there is something else he’d like to know – anything short of my family renouncing its Syrian and Muslim identities – I can’t imagine what it might be.

 

------------------

It’s almost beyond belief to me that anyone could mischaracterize the U.S. government’s vetting process as weak and insufficient, when it’s clearly anything but, to justify shutting the gate to millions of Syrian refugees. There is no way to look at my experience and the experience of tens of thousands of other refugees living in America and conclude that the country’s vetting system is not exhaustive and thorough.

 

To me, the real rationale behind Friday’s executive order is obvious: The president and his supporters do not trust people like me. Being both Syrian and Muslim (though I'm not personally religious) makes me doubly suspicious. I’m happy to be in the United States, a country I love. But it saddens me deeply to see what is happening here.

 

This is the most dressed-down, direct condemnation of the move I've seen, and I heartily agree.

 

This was a move made of ignorance, not rooted in fact or knowledge, made to appeal to a group of people who have likewise been led to ignore facts and be similarly ignorant. There is a human cost to closing our borders to those seeking shelter from war and its atrocities. Innocents will die. It's important to not push that fact to the background when having this discussion.

 

Donald Trump did not bar refugees because they're unsafe. He barred them because they're Muslims, and Muslims are scary and fundamentally evil. That is this man's worldview, and that is what this is about.

  • Upvote 4

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.

×