Immigration Ban

🙃

I am not in favor of a ban!

I hope this EO allows additional vetting measures to be implemented. (Short comings)

I do not advocate walking 3 miles in a raging blizzard to the store to get groceries, but since we are going, I would like to see us get some ice cream!
default_smile.png


 
Last edited by a moderator:
I do not advocate walking 3 miles in a raging blizzard to the store to get groceries, but since we are going, I would like to see us get some ice cream!
default_smile.png
Click to expand...
Another alternative is to express opposition to the guy leading us into the raging blizzard. Or at least to side with those who do.

Otherwise, does it not become difficult to claim that you oppose the EO?

 
I think commando has finally made me realize why many in here didn't like my opinion of reviewing the vetting procedures. The problem is I have been arguing for something reasonable but that isn't anywhere close to what Trump is doing.

My position has been, sure, review the vetting procedures, make sure they're up to snuff and make sure they're being consistently implemented. Period. That's it. That's what I felt was reasonable. But Trumper Tantrum is not limiting it to anything so reasonable. He's implementing bans and proposing ridiculous extreme vetting. I think my problem here has been that people are mistaking what I support as support for what Trump is doing. That couldn't be further from the truth.

 
Let me get in there!

...on a less erotic note, I found the passage quite interesting.

To preserve its independence, and give security against foreign aggression and encroachment, is the highest duty of every nation, and to attain these ends nearly all other considerations are to be subordinated. It matters not in what form such aggression and encroachment come, whether from the foreign nation acting in its national character, or from vast hordes of its people crowding in upon us. The government, possessing the powers which are to be exercised for protection and security, is clothed with authority to determine the occasion on which the powers shall be called forth, and its determinations, so far as the subjects affected are concerned, are necessarily conclusive upon all its departments and officers. If, therefore, the government of the United States, through its legislative department, considers the presence of foreigners of a different race in this country, who will not assimilate with us, to be dangerous to its peace and security, their exclusion is not to be stayed because at the time there are no actual hostilities with the nation of which the foreigners are subjects.
Click to expand...
It's amazing to me how current these sentiments feel.

 
El Diaco said:
I think commando has finally made me realize why many in here didn't like my opinion of reviewing the vetting procedures. The problem is I have been arguing for something reasonable but that isn't anywhere close to what Trump is doing.

My position has been, sure, review the vetting procedures, make sure they're up to snuff and make sure they're being consistently implemented. Period. That's it. That's what I felt was reasonable. But Trumper Tantrum is not limiting it to anything so reasonable. He's implementing bans and proposing ridiculous extreme vetting. I think my problem here has been that people are mistaking what I support as support for what Trump is doing. That couldn't be further from the truth.
Click to expand...
wth did i say?

 
commando said:
El Diaco said:
I think commando has finally made me realize why many in here didn't like my opinion of reviewing the vetting procedures. The problem is I have been arguing for something reasonable but that isn't anywhere close to what Trump is doing.

My position has been, sure, review the vetting procedures, make sure they're up to snuff and make sure they're being consistently implemented. Period. That's it. That's what I felt was reasonable. But Trumper Tantrum is not limiting it to anything so reasonable. He's implementing bans and proposing ridiculous extreme vetting. I think my problem here has been that people are mistaking what I support as support for what Trump is doing. That couldn't be further from the truth.
Click to expand...
wth did i say?
Click to expand...
Oh it was nothing direct. It just occured to me when I was responding to you in teach's status. I realized that our position was probably very much the same yet the discussion seemed like we were opposed.

 
State Dept says about 60,000 visas revoked due to travel ban

It appears an attorney for the government revealed that the figure was over 100,000. The State Department challenged this with 60,000.

After 19 months of interviews, background checks and medical examinations, the Gabr family was ready to resettle in New Jersey. But President Trump's executive order barring Syrian refugees from the U.S. indefinitely has put the family's future in question. (Heba Farouk Mahfouz / The Washington Post)
Click to expand...
"light vetting".

For people such as the brothers, Tareq and Ammar Aqel Mohammed Aziz, who tried to enter the country over the weekend with valid visas and were sent back, the government appears to be attempting a case-by-case reprieve. They and other plaintiffs in lawsuits around the country are being offered new visas and the opportunity to come to the United States in exchange for dropping their suits.
Click to expand...
First we'll bar you from the country, send you right back on an international flight after detaining you fresh off landing from an international flight...then we'll do you the favor of granting you individual reprieve from a legally dubious EO in exchange for the benefit of you dropping your legal challenges to the order.

Great way to do business.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Atbone95 said:
There is legal precedent for Trump's EO. This is all a bunch of whiny nonsense. It's 90 days.
Click to expand...
It's unconstitutional to use religion as a factor in whether or not to allow someone into the country.
"If you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible and the reason that was so unfair -- everybody was persecuted, in all fairness -- but they were chopping off the heads of everybody but more so the Christians. And I thought it was very, very unfair. So we are going to help them."
Click to expand...
So, Trump says Christian refugees will be prioritized.
Now, it doesn't seem that has happened yet. But it's worth stopping the ban and taking this to court at the very least to show Trump he won't be allowed to implement his plan to prioritize (or stop) immigrants based on religion.

Now all of that said, something being illegal or not shouldn't determine whether you think it's right. That's a silly reason to be for or against something.

I've heard from multiple people that "Obama did the same thing." No. He didn't. He had vetting of Iraqis looked at because of an incident and slowed down the entry for Iraqi holders of one type of visa. This never at any time applied to green card holders. People work towards green cards for years and years. I have a friend who's been here 6 years and *almost* has her green card. I have a co-worker who just got his after 6 years.

In relation to what I said about right and wrong, it doesn't matter what Obama did. He's not president anymore, and people who are against one thing Trump does are not for every single thing Obama did. Not sure that's the precedent you mean but it's the one cited most often.

Last but not least, anyone who thinks this will still be a temporary ban if even 1 American is killed in the U.S. by a Muslim of Arabic descent is most likely mistaken.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top