The Republican Utopia

[JJ Husker]

Is he banning only Muslisms from these countries?

To be honest, I am not sure. I do know that there are exemptions on ban for minorities fleeing religious persecution. And, at least for the time being, the bans are temporary until the situation can be fully evaluated. Considering his predecessor set goals to allow unprecedented immigration from these potentially troublesome locations, it seems fairly reasonable to me. I mean the government had already instituted travel bans to these countries. Why have those bans not been roundly criticized?

I can accept that this is more about fear and xenophobia than it is about business dealings.

I would agree with this. But I also accept that it is more about logical decision making than anything.

 

[zoogs]

Here's an op-ed that I think lays out some compelling criticisms of the exec order: https://qz.com/895042/trump-muslim-ban-trumps-hypocritical-immigration-executive-order-punishes-muslims-from-countries-america-has-destroyed/

It makes sense to me. But I never supported these de-facto Muslim bans to begin with, so it's preaching to the choir.

I'm skeptical that this makes us safer, and I do instead see it as selective punishment through denial of entry. In Syria's case, those are desperate refugees we're talking about. In other cases, the ban only makes sense if we see these immigrants not as a hardworking, highly skilled class trying to better their families' future, but as dangerous criminals. The latter is a common theme emanating from the Trump campaign, directed in many different directions, and I reject it without reservation.

 

[knapplc]

Considering his predecessor set goals to allow unprecedented immigration from these potentially troublesome locations, it seems fairly reasonable to me. I mean the government had already instituted travel bans to these countries. Why have those bans not been roundly criticized?

Can you cite your sources for "unprecedented immigration" coming to America from these seven countries? Can you cite your sources for "more Muslims immigrated to America than Christians?"

Why should we criticize travel bans to dangerous countries? Why shouldn't we allow refugees safe harbor in America? Are we done being the "Land of the free" and the "Home of the brave?"

This immigration ban seems the opposite of brave. It seems like a reaction out of fear.

 

[JJ Husker]

Is this where/when people turn this into an I must support everything Trump thing? Seems like people want to make 2 camps; either you're against everything or you must be for everything. Personally I think that is complete bullsh#t.

I support Trump's proposals on national infrastructure (pending further review), so if this is the case, I guess I'm in the "I support everything Trump does" straw man you're trying to create here.

And, so I am very clear with my position, I think placing a temporary ban on immigration from those countries is a great idea.

What will that accomplish, other than harming refugees?

Sure it may harm some refugees but which country's refugees are you more concerned about than US citizens?

Maybe it will accomplish providing time to implement reasonable vetting procedures to stop the open door policy and hopefully provide more safeguards against allowing potential terrorists into our country.

If you lived in a high crime area, would you routinely leave your doors unlocked and post a sign in your yard stating as much?

I find it interesting that your argument has morphed from claiming that Trump is doing this because of his business interests and now it seems to be just plain opposition to the policy.

 

[knapplc]

Our doors aren't unlocked. We have good vetting of refugees right now. Pretending that if we allow refugees into America from these seven countries we'll definitely be putting Americans at risk is a fear tactic.

I'm not arguing about the business interests with you anymore because your mind's made up.

Can you please cite your sources now?

 

[QMany]

Sure it may harm some refugees but which country's refugees are you more concerned about than US citizens?

Maybe it will accomplish providing time to implement reasonable vetting procedures to stop the open door policy and hopefully provide more safeguards against allowing potential terrorists into our country.

If you lived in a high crime area, would you routinely leave your doors unlocked and post a sign in your yard stating as much?

 

[zoogs]

I don't really see how stopping new people from becoming U.S. citizens is a particular help or defense for the current citizenry, one of the enduring strengths of which is its diversity, openness, and commitment to freedom and tolerance.

I'm curious if you could expand on the open door policy. What "reasonable vetting procedures" did not exist previously?

I'm concerned about crime and terrorism, too. But we do a great job of creating our own criminals -- our mass murderers, even our own terrorists. Alienating groups of people within our own body of citizens is to me one of the more risky things that has been happening. That, more than anything, is a threat that need to be vigorously confronted, not with punitive measures but with compassion.

 

[JJ Husker]

Considering his predecessor set goals to allow unprecedented immigration from these potentially troublesome locations, it seems fairly reasonable to me. I mean the government had already instituted travel bans to these countries. Why have those bans not been roundly criticized?

Can you cite your sources for "unprecedented immigration" coming to America from these seven countries? Can you cite your sources for "more Muslims immigrated to America than Christians?"

Why should we criticize travel bans to dangerous countries? Why shouldn't we allow refugees safe harbor in America? Are we done being the "Land of the free" and the "Home of the brave?"

This immigration ban seems the opposite of brave. It seems like a reaction out of fear.

The US government permitted 38,901 Muslim refugees to enter the country in 2016, nearly half of the total number of refugees it permitted into its borders, according to a study by the Pew Research Center.

The figure represents the highest number of Muslim refugees that have been permitted into the US since data on religious affiliation became publicly available in 2002.

It followed increasing escalation in Syria's bloody civil war, as well as continued instability in Iraq and Afghanistan and the collapse of Libya's government.

The US allowed nearly the same number of Christians into the country – 37,521.

Fiscal 2016, which ended on September 30, was the first time in 10 years that the US admitted more Muslims than Christians.

The majority of the Muslim refugees who entered the US last year were from Syria (12,486) and Somalia (9,012).

The rest came from Iraq (7,853), Burma (3,145) - where Muslims are harshly discriminated against - Afghanistan (2,664), and other countries.

The Obama administration aimed to absorb 10,000 Syrian refugees. Instead, it exceeded the goal by 2,486.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4154332/Trump-ban-immigrants-Syria-6-countries.html#ixzz4WtAICltJ

 

[knapplc]

So, it wasn't that "his predecessor set goals to allow unprecedented immigration from these potentially troublesome locations," it was that there's a bloody war going on in Syria right now and those people need safe refuge.

Accepting refugees fleeing from bloody wars seems like something Jesus would do. Right?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I guess I'd also like an explanation why it was important to note that "more Muslims immigrated to America than Christians." Why do we care about that?

 

[knapplc]

Remember when people were optimistic that the Republicans would act as a curb for Trump's tomfoolery? You're not going to believe this but...


"...and Mexico will pay for it."

 

[JJ Husker]

I don't really see how stopping new people from becoming U.S. citizens is a particular help or defense for the current citizenry, one of the enduring strengths of which is its diversity, openness, and commitment to freedom and tolerance.

I'm curious if you could expand on the open door policy. What "reasonable vetting procedures" did not exist previously?

I'm concerned about crime and terrorism, too. But we do a great job of creating our own criminals -- our mass murderers, even our own terrorists. Alienating groups of people within our own body of citizens is to me one of the more risky things that has been happening. That, more than anything, is a threat that need to be vigorously confronted, not with punitive measures but with compassion.

I agree with your first sentence.
I think the record numbers of immigrants from these troubled countries might indicate that the previous administration was maybe not completely thorough in vetting them, particularly in consideration of world events and the existence of ISIS. I do not know the exact procedures that already take place to prevent potential terrorists from entering our country. I don't think it is out of line for a new administration to want to temporarily halt what was going on before to give them time to review and adjust procedures.

I don't think the existence of other undesirable conditions should prevent also dealing with this one. If I'm not mistaken, I believe Trump has also expressed serious concerns about crime and shootings occurring in our own cities. I'm guessing he'll be addressing those issues as well.

 

[Fru]

Remember when people were optimistic that the Republicans would act as a curb for Trump's tomfoolery? You're not going to believe this but...



"...and Mexico will pay for it."

Where's all of this fiscal responsibility I've heard oh so much about?

 

[BigRedBuster]

I don't really see how stopping new people from becoming U.S. citizens is a particular help or defense for the current citizenry, one of the enduring strengths of which is its diversity, openness, and commitment to freedom and tolerance.

I'm curious if you could expand on the open door policy. What "reasonable vetting procedures" did not exist previously?

I'm concerned about crime and terrorism, too. But we do a great job of creating our own criminals -- our mass murderers, even our own terrorists. Alienating groups of people within our own body of citizens is to me one of the more risky things that has been happening. That, more than anything, is a threat that need to be vigorously confronted, not with punitive measures but with compassion.

I agree with your first sentence.

I think the record numbers of immigrants from these troubled countries might indicate that the previous administration was maybe not completely thorough in vetting them, particularly in consideration of world events and the existence of ISIS. I do not know the exact procedures that already take place to prevent potential terrorists from entering our country. I don't think it is out of line for a new administration to want to temporarily halt what was going on before to give them time to review and adjust procedures.

I don't the existence of other undesirable conditions should prevent also dealing with this one. If I'm not mistaken, I believe Trump has also expressed serious concerns about crime and shootings occurring in our own cities. I'm guessing he'll be addressing those issues as well.

I'm struggling to see the reasoning behind the bolded statement.

 

[JJ Husker]

I don't really see how stopping new people from becoming U.S. citizens is a particular help or defense for the current citizenry, one of the enduring strengths of which is its diversity, openness, and commitment to freedom and tolerance.

I'm curious if you could expand on the open door policy. What "reasonable vetting procedures" did not exist previously?

I'm concerned about crime and terrorism, too. But we do a great job of creating our own criminals -- our mass murderers, even our own terrorists. Alienating groups of people within our own body of citizens is to me one of the more risky things that has been happening. That, more than anything, is a threat that need to be vigorously confronted, not with punitive measures but with compassion.

I agree with your first sentence.
I think the record numbers of immigrants from these troubled countries might indicate that the previous administration was maybe not completely thorough in vetting them, particularly in consideration of world events and the existence of ISIS. I do not know the exact procedures that already take place to prevent potential terrorists from entering our country. I don't think it is out of line for a new administration to want to temporarily halt what was going on before to give them time to review and adjust procedures.

I don't the existence of other undesirable conditions should prevent also dealing with this one. If I'm not mistaken, I believe Trump has also expressed serious concerns about crime and shootings occurring in our own cities. I'm guessing he'll be addressing those issues as well.

I'm struggling to see the reasoning behind the bolded statement.

So, you see no connection between the prevalence of radical Islamic terrorism and the existence of ISIS within those countries and the increased possibility that people immigrating from those countries may more likely be terrorists themselves?

 

[BigRedBuster]

I don't really see how stopping new people from becoming U.S. citizens is a particular help or defense for the current citizenry, one of the enduring strengths of which is its diversity, openness, and commitment to freedom and tolerance.

I'm curious if you could expand on the open door policy. What "reasonable vetting procedures" did not exist previously?

I'm concerned about crime and terrorism, too. But we do a great job of creating our own criminals -- our mass murderers, even our own terrorists. Alienating groups of people within our own body of citizens is to me one of the more risky things that has been happening. That, more than anything, is a threat that need to be vigorously confronted, not with punitive measures but with compassion.

I agree with your first sentence.
I think the record numbers of immigrants from these troubled countries might indicate that the previous administration was maybe not completely thorough in vetting them, particularly in consideration of world events and the existence of ISIS. I do not know the exact procedures that already take place to prevent potential terrorists from entering our country. I don't think it is out of line for a new administration to want to temporarily halt what was going on before to give them time to review and adjust procedures.

I don't the existence of other undesirable conditions should prevent also dealing with this one. If I'm not mistaken, I believe Trump has also expressed serious concerns about crime and shootings occurring in our own cities. I'm guessing he'll be addressing those issues as well.

I'm struggling to see the reasoning behind the bolded statement.

So, you see no connection between the prevalence of radical Islamic terrorism and the existence of ISIS within those countries and the increased possibility that people immigrating from those countries may more likely be terrorists themselves?

There are bloody wars in those countries. We tend to bring in refugees from war torn countries. I fail to see how that is proof that we are not completely thorough in vetting them.

I'm failing to see how one proves the other.