Immigration Ban

[TonyStalloni]

As a national policy we would be much better off working toward a solution to the Syrian Crisis than the heavy focus on refugees. I am NOT saying we ignore their plight because they obviously need food and shelter. I know there are 2 million Syrians that flooded into Lebanon in the last 4 or 5 years. I have a friend who has 2 sons who both work in Syria doing what they can through relief agencies. My church this past Christmas raised a large amount of money to create schools for refugee Syrian children living in Lebanon because they aren't eligible to go to Lebanese schools for a number of reasons. The thinking is to prepare them for the world rather than have them grow up as angry uneducated teens unable to find work.

 

The last year under Obama we took in about 15000 refugees which was a higher number than he allowed in the previous 7 years of his 2 terms. Of just the 2 million Syrians living in Lebanon I would guess 500,000 (250,000 couples) are childbearing age. If only one out of ten bears a child per year that would be 25,000 new babies born. At 2016 immigration rates we won't even keep up with the birth rate of only those in Lebanon let alone the thousands or probably millions that fled to other countries.

 

The most humane thing we can do is work to get their country's problems solved and their country rebuilt so they can go home.

[knapplc]

As a national policy we would be much better off working toward a solution to the Syrian Crisis than the heavy focus on refugees. I am NOT saying we ignore their plight because they obviously need food and shelter. I know there are 2 million Syrians that flooded into Lebanon in the last 4 or 5 years. I have a friend who has 2 sons who both work in Syria doing what they can through relief agencies. My church this past Christmas raised a large amount of money to create schools for refugee Syrian children living in Lebanon because they aren't eligible to go to Lebanese schools for a number of reasons. The thinking is to prepare them for the world rather than have them grow up as angry uneducated teens unable to find work.

 

The last year under Obama we took in about 15000 refugees which was a higher number than he allowed in the previous 7 years of his 2 terms. Of just the 2 million Syrians living in Lebanon I would guess 500,000 (250,000 couples) are childbearing age. If only one out of ten bears a child per year that would be 25,000 new babies born. At 2016 immigration rates we won't even keep up with the birth rate of only those in Lebanon let alone the thousands or probably millions that fled to other countries.

 

The most humane thing we can do is work to get their country's problems solved and their country rebuilt so they can go home.

I absolutely agree with this. Solving the Syrian crisis has to be the first priority.

[TAKODA]

We had no domestic terror attacks from foreign sources for eight years under Obama. None, despite what we are being told was a sub-standard vetting process.

 

Trump is in office less than a week... and suddenly we are unsafe and we HAVE TO ban Muslims (and only Muslims!) from these countries?

 

NO! Not all muslims, and not BAN. Just be more vigilant with those countries where government has failed and were also identified by the Obama admin as high security risk. Maybe DT will add to the list, not my call. Personally, if they add a few processes to the mix for "ALL" non-citizens, I think it could become seamless or indifffernt to time constraints that we have seen under Obama.

 

Kinda seems like we were safer under Obama. Right?

We were not safer Knapp. Trust me, illusions that our citizens choose to believe. I am not saying we are safer with DT either by virtue of his EO, because it is not DT who has to vet, act or secure the potential security risk.

 

It will only get better by carrying out proper and complete vetting. This may start at the White House, but falls to those who have been involved with some of the past vetting, and seeing the holes that need to be filled. How many of you are bosses and can do every aspect of every job of every employee under you? Same holds true to the leadership roles in our nation. Sometimes they know where they want to go with something, but they have little clue as to what goes into it. Sometimes, once they understand the complexity or the results, they come full circle. Other times, well, they don't.

 

Obama was a polished leader who knew how to communicate his thoughts in an eloquant manner. I respected him for that and would have selected him over HC or DT, had he been an option. Pros: We knew what we had and while not all was perfect, the track was laid out to run on. Cons: We knew what we had. Nothing was going to change and we would have been in the same situation 4 years from now as we were then.

 

Again, not a proponent of banning Muslims, am a proponent for us doing our due diligence.

[TAKODA]

 

As a national policy we would be much better off working toward a solution to the Syrian Crisis than the heavy focus on refugees. I am NOT saying we ignore their plight because they obviously need food and shelter. I know there are 2 million Syrians that flooded into Lebanon in the last 4 or 5 years. I have a friend who has 2 sons who both work in Syria doing what they can through relief agencies. My church this past Christmas raised a large amount of money to create schools for refugee Syrian children living in Lebanon because they aren't eligible to go to Lebanese schools for a number of reasons. The thinking is to prepare them for the world rather than have them grow up as angry uneducated teens unable to find work.

 

The last year under Obama we took in about 15000 refugees which was a higher number than he allowed in the previous 7 years of his 2 terms. Of just the 2 million Syrians living in Lebanon I would guess 500,000 (250,000 couples) are childbearing age. If only one out of ten bears a child per year that would be 25,000 new babies born. At 2016 immigration rates we won't even keep up with the birth rate of only those in Lebanon let alone the thousands or probably millions that fled to other countries.

 

The most humane thing we can do is work to get their country's problems solved and their country rebuilt so they can go home.

I absolutely agree with this. Solving the Syrian crisis has to be the first priority.

No argument here +1

[Danny Bateman]

It seems that Trump's admin is posturing to be more aggressive in Syria. But he wants to work with Putin on it, and Putin is a big pro-Assad guy. So... they're going to take out the rebels? Doesn't that just put us back at square one with a guy who's used chemical weapons on civilians multiple times?

 

I don't envy the people who have to make decisions like these. Obama botched Syria and was absolutely hung out to dry for it. Red line and all that jazz. But neither option seems particularly appealing, because deposing Assad could give us another Libya.

 

FWIW, Tony, that's a super reasonable view. It's pretty much the way I feel about a path to citizenships vs. deportations stateside.

[TAKODA]

Takoda, what if there's an attack tomorrow commited by Muslim citizens and Trump decides to revoke all green cards for people from countries with a Muslim majority and move Muslim citizens to camps (Trump has already said there's a precedent for that).

I just feel like many people are failing to see the writing on the wall here. Hopefully I'm wrong here and this is where it ends, but it's already gone too far imo.

Moiraine, I don't know the what if answer here or what you are looking for from me. I am not the leader of this country. If you were in the cross hairs of being picked off at some event and I seen the breech of security and the subject taking aim, I could tell you what I would do.

 

Your presenting a situation that is not without potential to occur (and most likely will occur at some point) where a Muslim is involved in an attack of sorts.

[Moiraine]

 

Takoda, what if there's an attack tomorrow commited by Muslim citizens and Trump decides to revoke all green cards for people from countries with a Muslim majority and move Muslim citizens to camps (Trump has already said there's a precedent for that).

I just feel like many people are failing to see the writing on the wall here. Hopefully I'm wrong here and this is where it ends, but it's already gone too far imo.

Moiraine, I don't know the what if answer here or what you are looking for from me. I am not the leader of this country. If you were in the cross hairs of being picked off at some event and I seen the breech of security and the subject taking aim, I could tell you what I would do.

 

Your presenting a situation that is not without potential to occur (and most likely will occur at some point) where a Muslim is involved in an attack of sorts.

 

I just wanted your opinion on it. Wasn't trying to blame you for anything, heh. And kinda wanted to add why some people are reacting how they are.

[TAKODA]

Good night all.

 

Sleep well knowing that there are those who really do want the best for all people, but have the duty to protect the home front first.

 

Here we go, from what?

 

You don't know what you don't know. Not You personally, but as a whole.

[TAKODA]

 

 

Takoda, what if there's an attack tomorrow commited by Muslim citizens and Trump decides to revoke all green cards for people from countries with a Muslim majority and move Muslim citizens to camps (Trump has already said there's a precedent for that).

I just feel like many people are failing to see the writing on the wall here. Hopefully I'm wrong here and this is where it ends, but it's already gone too far imo.

Moiraine, I don't know the what if answer here or what you are looking for from me. I am not the leader of this country. If you were in the cross hairs of being picked off at some event and I seen the breech of security and the subject taking aim, I could tell you what I would do.

Your presenting a situation that is not without potential to occur (and most likely will occur at some point) where a Muslim is involved in an attack of sorts.

I just wanted your opinion on it. Wasn't trying to blame you for anything, heh. And kinda wanted to add why some people are reacting how they are.

I did not look at it as if you were trying to blame me! So you wanted to add why some people are reacting how they are? How did I add any value to that by answering your Q?

[Landlord]

While I appreciate the stanch stand you and others are making for all to be welcome with the current processes in place, I disagree that we are where we need to be to contniue to have the level of security that is or will be required as we move forward.

 

 

The question many of us keep coming to is.....but, why? Why do you not think we are safe? There's 16 years worth of data that disagrees with you.

 

Are you just giving the administration the benefit of the doubt? If you are, that's fine, but just admit that you don't have an actual reason to hold that belief and are just taking the word of others as true.

[TAKODA]

 

While I appreciate the stanch stand you and others are making for all to be welcome with the current processes in place, I disagree that we are where we need to be to contniue to have the level of security that is or will be required as we move forward.

 

 

The question many of us keep coming to is.....but, why? Why do you not think we are safe? There's 16 years worth of data that disagrees with you.

 

Are you just giving the administration the benefit of the doubt? If you are, that's fine, but just admit that you don't have an actual reason to hold that belief and are just taking the word of others as true.

LLOMS, No, its not me taking anyone's word. Do I or have I ever appeared to cower to anyone here or act as if I just swallow what is shoved in front of my face?

[Landlord]

LLOMS, No, its not me taking anyone's word. Do I or have I ever appeared to cower to anyone here or act as if I just swallow what is shoved in front of my face?

 

 

Then please, provide the evidence that is the basis of the belief that our vetting process isn't satisfactory and we aren't safe. And also that we had to ban all travel into the States from these countries while it was being reviewed (ie, that it couldn't be reviewed while things continued on).

 

When you support something that is obviously causing so much damage to so many people, you have to have pretty reliable underpinnings for doing so. I am genuinely asking for any kind of data, reports, etc. that lend to this position, because I have not seen any and my heart absolutely breaks for way too many good, innocent people caught in the middle of this and having their lives severely negatively impacted or even ruined.

 

What is it for? "Well, we aren't safe enough so we need to fix it." Not good enough. Why aren't we safe enough? What metric is being used to determine that as a fact claim?

[TAKODA]

 

LLOMS, No, its not me taking anyone's word. Do I or have I ever appeared to cower to anyone here or act as if I just swallow what is shoved in front of my face?

 

 

Then please, provide the evidence that is the basis of the belief that our vetting process isn't satisfactory and we aren't safe. And also that we had to ban all travel into the States from these countries while it was being reviewed (ie, that it couldn't be reviewed while things continued on).

 

When you support something that is obviously causing so much damage to so many people, you have to have pretty reliable underpinnings for doing so. I am genuinely asking for any kind of data, reports, etc. that lend to this position, because I have not seen any and my heart absolutely breaks for way too many good, innocent people caught in the middle of this and having their lives severely negatively impacted or even ruined.

 

What is it for? "Well, we aren't safe enough so we need to fix it." Not good enough. Why aren't we safe enough? What metric is being used to determine that as a fact claim?

I am not privy to the exact metric or data that was shared with DT, where he came to his conclusion. Hell, he might have had a bad day at the office and he decided on his EO. Not my call and I do not have all the date he has access too. However, I am very familiar with risk assessments involving threats that pose the greatest risk to our country, including targets and hazards that very well would dwarf 9-11. I do not know the perpatrators are, will be, but I know how vulnerable we are, where they are and the most logical course that would be used to access these week points. Sharing this data serves no one but those who would chose to do ill with the data.

 

Edit ~ I go back to my original comment. I am not a proponent of banning. I am a proponent of doing our due dillagence to insure the safety of our citizens. We have weaknesses and if the Executive branch who has more data than I, come to the conclusion that they are going to vet deeper, it makes sense.

 

Again, not trying to sound harsh and I know this has ruffled a lot of feathers, but I believe things will work themselves out when alll the players, get a chance to see what is what. When? I am not privy to that either, just doing my best to make it through another day.

[TAKODA]

I have to hit the sheets.

 

I will check back in tomorrow night, god willing!

 

Good night all!

[Landlord]

You keep saying we have weaknesses? What are the weaknesses? You know how vulnerable we are, and where those weak points are. So then, my two follow up questions would be how vulnerable are we, in a way that has some kind of static comparison and not just 'feeling' or anecdote, and what are the weak points? For example, I agree that there are vulnerabilities in the United States. One such vulnerability is how easy it is to get into this country in essentially any way other than the refugee vetting process. Why has Donald Trump not suspended the visa waiver, program for example? Terrorists could get here from one of 38 countries without even having a VISA by these means, instead of an arduous 18-24 month long investigation.

 

And still, if you don't know what data is being used, but you do know the data that no refugees have ever killed Americans, and you admit that maybe Trump (who has a history of immaturity, insecurity, temper tantrums and rash overreactionary decisions) might have just been having a bad day, and you look at the evidence of Steve Bannon's white supremacy philosophies, and you see how people's lives are being seriously affected by this...how can you stand for it?

 

I really want to know the answer to that. I hope you feel I am not badgering you. I don't know how anyone can be okay with this, because to me it looks like there is a mountain's worth of evidence saying, "This is wrong, possibly illegal, not thought through, and really hurting people." compared to conjecture and spin saying, "This is necessary to keep us safe."