Immigration Ban

[TAKODA]

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

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

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

Got it!

That's a pretty terrible analogy. Here's my own attempt.Let's say Nebraska shuts out every team they play next fall. But Iowa manages a couple field goal attempts and gains 300 yards on us.

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

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

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

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

I was trying to be humorous Moiraine!

There is nothing known to man kind that can't be improved upon!

While there might be gnashing of teeth at the thought of how the improvement might be

Implemented, it settles with the dust! DT and his hand selected peers will make their own beds! They will either get a better nights sleep or they will need to become Holiday Inn card holders!

 

[knapplc]

Why aren't you concerned with the welfare of the Syrian refugees, TAKODA?

 

[teachercd]

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

They tried on one...The other is an Amendment (I would be super fine if they did away with guns)...I guess on Tobacco is it because you don't have to smoke? I don't know.

 

[Landlord]

The bottom line is improving the process, if it can be improved upon! No less, no more. It will come out in the wash (good or bad).

This is fine in theory, but still does not answer the question of why people's lives needed to be destroyed by temporarily (or indefinitely, in the case of Syria) banning entry while the process is reviewed/supposedly improved. Why did that need to happen? The only two answers I can think of, which are both wrong, are that either A) the same people doing the vetting are the people that need to be doing the review and they'd just be too dang busy or B) letting them in in the meantime represents a security risk, which we have 16 years and 800,000 people of data points to argue against.

 

[commando]

americans seem to be more afraid of muslim extremism rather than right wing extremism even though the extreme right is a bigger threat at the moment. the muslim extremist can kill a few people. the extreme right can kill the american way of life.

 

[Oade]

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

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

Fair enough, and I'm not trying to pick on you with this post, just a general observation of mine.... Holding representatives accountable is necessary and should be never-ending, so why weren't there these same level of protests happening when Obama was only admitting less than 50 Syrian refugees per year? Where was the up-roar then?

Does anyone on here honestly think that Trump's administration is going to have admitted any less than 50 Syrian refugee's by the end of the year?

Honestly, if this is truly a temporary EO, then he's going to admit more Syrian refugees into this country than Obama did most years.

Here are the Syrian-refugee admissions to the U.S. since the start of the Syrian Civil War: https://2009-2017.st...stics/index.htm
2007: 17

2008: 24

2009: 25

2010: 25

-- The War "Started" --

2011: 29
2012: 31
2013: 36
2014: 105
2015: 1,682
2016: 13,210 (unofficial) http://www.cnsnews.c...ober-675-99-are / https://www.nytimes....ted-states.html

 

[TAKODA]

Why aren't you concerned with the welfare of the Syrian refugees, TAKODA?

I am concerned with the welfare of any and all individuals, where my talents and expertises can improve upon or sustain their lives! However, My #1 concern (has been / is) protecting you Knapp, Moiraine, LLOMs, your families your pets, your food suppply, your abilities to go enjoy that husker game.

I or any other current/past law enforcement officer/agent, is/are entrusted to keep OUR citizens safe! It does not come without conflicting views or beliefs and or even appointments!

We live in a tough world, in a tough time, it would be nice to be able to say it was all done properly, but sometimes, we just get by and hope like hell we get through tomorrow

 

[zoogs]

Fair enough, and I'm not trying to pick on you with this post, just a general observation of mine.... Holding representatives is necessary and should be never-ending, so why weren't there these same level of protests happening when Obama was only admitting less than 50 Syrian refugees per year? Where was the up-roar then?

My position is that the U.S. under Obama did FAR less than its far share of shouldering the refugee burden in Syria.

Although I would also point out that he tried to increase these numbers. It wasn't easy, as low as they were. The opposition was fierce. Where did that opposition come from?

Does anyone on here really think that Trump's administration is going to have admitted any less than 50 Syrian refugee's by the end of the year?

This is not the right comparison. What was the target number for 2017 on the other side?

 

[teachercd]

Why aren't you concerned with the welfare of the Syrian refugees, TAKODA?

I am concerned with the welfare of any and all individuals, where my talents and expertises can improve upon or sustain their lives! However, My #1 concern (has been / is) protecting you Knapp, Moiraine, LLOMs, your families your pets, your food suppply, your abilities to go enjoy that husker game.

I or any other current/past law enforcement officer/agent, is/are entrusted to keep OUR citizens safe! It does not come without conflicting views or beliefs and or even appointments!

We live in a tough world, in a tough time, it would be nice to be able to say it was all done properly, but sometimes, we just get by and hope like hell we get through tomorrow

This! Thank you!

 

[knapplc]

why weren't there these same level of protests happening when Obama was only admitting less than 50 Syrian refugees per year? Where was the up-roar then?

Republican governors were most responsible for blocking Syrian refugees, not Obama.

LINK

Governors have exhausted virtually all options to stonewall families fleeing the brutal civil war in Syria. They’ve tried everything from political grandstanding to issuing a flurry of executive orders to ban state agencies from accepting new refugee applicants — some officials have even taken the feds to the court.

LINK

In the wake of last Friday's attacks in Paris, Republican governors across the country have made their positions clear—they want nothing to do with the Syrians fleeing ISIS. On Sunday, Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley announced that his state won't accept any Syrian refugees. On Monday, Texas Gov. Greg Abbot, Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, and Indiana Gov. Mike Pence followed suit. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal issued an executive order to halt the flow of Syrian refugees to his state (it has accepted 14).

Even Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, who had previously called welcoming refugees "part of being a good Michigander," announced he was suspending his work with the federal government on bringing Syrians to his state. "Michigan is a welcoming state and we are proud of our rich history of immigration," he said in a statement. "But our first priority is protecting the safety of our residents."

Obama finally put his foot down and said we were accepting them, period.

People are also, conveniently, forgetting that we had an in-place, rigorous vetting process.

LINK

In the United States, very few resettled refugees — three since 9/11, according to the Washington Post’s Fact Checker — have been implicated in terrorist situations. Daryl Grisgraber of Refugees International pointed out that the Tsarnaevs came to the United States as children from Chechnya and applied for asylum, but were radicalized here.
Refugees are subject to the highest level of security checks of any traveler category to the United States. So for ISIS to take advantage of the refugee program "makes no operational sense," said Anne Speckhard, a counterterrorism expert at Georgetown University.

"Given how easy it is to send a European extremist to the U.S. via Europe, why would an ISIS guy in Syria wait the three years it takes to get refugee status?" she said.

 

[knapplc]

Why aren't you concerned with the welfare of the Syrian refugees, TAKODA?

I am concerned with the welfare of any and all individuals, where my talents and expertises can improve upon or sustain their lives! However, My #1 concern (has been / is) protecting you Knapp, Moiraine, LLOMs, your families your pets, your food suppply, your abilities to go enjoy that husker game.

I or any other current/past law enforcement officer/agent, is/are entrusted to keep OUR citizens safe! It does not come without conflicting views or beliefs and or even appointments!

We live in a tough world, in a tough time, it would be nice to be able to say it was all done properly, but sometimes, we just get by and hope like hell we get through tomorrow

More crimes have been committed by Law Enforcement Officers than Syrian refugees. Would you be OK with shutting down all Law Enforcement while we fix that problem?

 

[TAKODA]

The bottom line is improving the process, if it can be improved upon! No less, no more. It will come out in the wash (good or bad).

This is fine in theory, but still does not answer the question of why people's lives needed to be destroyed by temporarily (or indefinitely, in the case of Syria) banning entry while the process is reviewed/supposedly improved. Why did that need to happen? The only two answers I can think of, which are both wrong, are that either A) the same people doing the vetting are the people that need to be doing the review and they'd just be too dang busy or B) letting them in in the meantime represents a security risk, which we have 16 years and 800,000 people of data points to argue against.

1. Destroyed? You mean a continuation of where they were prior to attempting to become a refugee in the states! Yes, there can be a separation of family members if certain aspects occur and yes, that could cause heartache and pain to the mother/father/sons/daughters/siblings!

Not trying to sound hard here, but what you (US citizens) think of as a hardship, some of these individuals think are vacations!

While we need more improvements, we are not Europe bad yet!

To try to answer your question LLOMS, I was not sitting in that meeting where the current admin made their decision to enact the EO.

I would be happy to give anyone in the Oval Office my opinion, if they ask. Not shy, nor do fret much!

 

[knapplc]

TAKODA, do you think Steve Bannon is racist?

 

[zoogs]

Notwithstanding the fact that refugees are the most desperate of the people affected...

This is tearing apart families of people who are US citizens. Or people who are studying here, becoming doctors here, doing research. What of the injustices perpetrated on them? They're people, right? No different than you or me. All of us must either know them or know people who know them. If not, there's plenty of them shouting out the experiences that they are going through now -- if you seek out and listen.

Which parts of those experiences are OK?

 

[Oade]

Fair enough, and I'm not trying to pick on you with this post, just a general observation of mine.... Holding representatives is necessary and should be never-ending, so why weren't there these same level of protests happening when Obama was only admitting less than 50 Syrian refugees per year? Where was the up-roar then?

My position is that the U.S. under Obama did FAR less than its far share of shouldering the refugee burden in Syria.

Although I would also point out that he tried to increase these numbers. It wasn't easy, as low as they were. The opposition was fierce. Where did that opposition come from?

Does anyone on here really think that Trump's administration is going to have admitted any less than 50 Syrian refugee's by the end of the year?

This is not the right comparison. What was the target number for 2017 on the other side?

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

I'm not trying to compare anything in all honesty. I was pointing out that a lot of people on here and otherwise are acting like we aren't allowing any refugees in this year. Or that what we had been doing for the previous decade was good. Which is not true.... We will have allowed more Syrians in, and possibly better screened, by the end of the year than all but maybe one year of Obama's tenure combined. Why protest on end about that?

Of course this should not be a numbers game, and we should help as many people in need as possible. Putting a limit on it is silly, but so is not fully addressing the true reasons behind why these people are refugees to start with. Nobody on either side of the aisle seems to have a great idea behind addressing that though.

I think we can all agree we want to see these people helped, and in the end, I fully expect them to be.... For as disappointed in the EO as I am, I also won't pretend that this policy is going to last Trumps entire tenure (unless Trump is impeached within the next 90 days).... Things are going to get sorted out soon, and hopefully they come up with a better policy than what has been in place for the previous decade. If they can do that, then I can be patient for 3 months.