The Republican Utopia

[Danny Bateman]

Another good breakdown of the rather extensive vetting process for refugees.

 

[Landlord]

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.

 

[Mierin]

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

 

[Beez]

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.

 

[Beez]

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.

 

[Mierin]

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.

 

[funhusker]

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

 

[Landlord]

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.

 

[Husker Red Til Dead]

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...

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

 

[Husker Red Til Dead]

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.

 

[knapplc]

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...

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?

 

[ColoNoCoHusker]

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

 

[FrankWheeler]

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.

 

[Husker Red Til Dead]

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

 

[knapplc]

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