The Republican Utopia

[ColoNoCoHusker]

I agree BRB. I am having a real hard with JJ's ED's immigration logic that is essentially "there are problems in the world, therefore Muslims are terrorists".

In the entire history of the US, immigration has always come from troubled areas or situations. People do not immigrate here for a lateral move or to be worse-off. They immigrate for a better opportunity. By definition we are always going to have immigration from troubled areas. To say that is a problem is to ignore why people immigrate.

If you actually read the vetting done by the US Immigration office, you will see it does not have the holes you say it does. I do not know that any process will be absolutely perfect over any extended period of time. However, we have more terrorist activity being planned by American born citizens, many white Christians, than by Muslim refugees.

 

[knapplc]

Are the Syrians coming to America even immigrants? Or are they refugees? Because there's a distinction, and that would throw a wrench into the (weird) claim more Muslims immigrated to America than Christians.

I'd also, still, like to know why we're drawing a distinction between religions.

 

[zoogs]

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.

First, the new policy is not a temporary halt for review and adjust. It is an intentional break.

Also, the procedures in place were not unknowable, either to citizens or to Trump and his team. In fact, those procedures were part of the political debate that occurred around this policy.

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.

My problem with this is that these are not separate problems; this ban has been presented as a way to address the "crime/terrorism threat" problem. My argument is that it does not do so. It is also merely reflective of the other approaches Trump has and will take, which I find similarly problematic. Otherwise, I agree that issues can be tackled in parallel.

I appreciate how cogently you're making all your points by the way, ED

 

[ColoNoCoHusker]

Are the Syrians coming to America even immigrants? Or are they refugees? Because there's a distinction, and that would throw a wrench into the (weird) claim more Muslims immigrated to America than Christians.

I'd also, still, like to know why we're drawing a distinction between religions.

The US Immigration dept considers Refugee status as a specific subset of Immigrants. It further identifies Asylum status as a subset of Refugee status. These are Humanitarian classifications different than standard immigration but they roll-up into the broader immigration numbers. I think you are splitting a pretty fine hair (although I agree with your premise & reason for doing so).

 

[knapplc]

Are the Syrians coming to America even immigrants? Or are they refugees? Because there's a distinction, and that would throw a wrench into the (weird) claim more Muslims immigrated to America than Christians.

I'd also, still, like to know why we're drawing a distinction between religions.

The US Immigration considers Refugee status as a specific subset of Immigrants. It further identifies Asylum status as a subset of Refugee status. These are Humanitarian classifications different than standard immigration but they roll-up into the broader immigration numbers. I think you are splitting a pretty fine hair (although I agree with your premise & reason for doing so).

I did not know that about the definitions.

I would imagine there will be a percentage of Syrians who stay in America, since their old lives are perhaps shattered beyond repair. There will be a lot of them who go home, though - Syria was a pretty amazing country before this war.

That's where I see a difference between refugees and immigrants. Immigrants intentionally move here to stay. Refugees are, by nature, intentionally temporary.

 

[ColoNoCoHusker]

Are the Syrians coming to America even immigrants? Or are they refugees? Because there's a distinction, and that would throw a wrench into the (weird) claim more Muslims immigrated to America than Christians.

I'd also, still, like to know why we're drawing a distinction between religions.

The US Immigration considers Refugee status as a specific subset of Immigrants. It further identifies Asylum status as a subset of Refugee status. These are Humanitarian classifications different than standard immigration but they roll-up into the broader immigration numbers. I think you are splitting a pretty fine hair (although I agree with your premise & reason for doing so).

I did not know that about the definitions.

I would imagine there will be a percentage of Syrians who stay in America, since their old lives are perhaps shattered beyond repair. There will be a lot of them who go home, though - Syria was a pretty amazing country before this war.

That's where I see a difference between refugees and immigrants. Immigrants intentionally move here to stay. Refugees are, by nature, intentionally temporary.

Absolutely, but the US Immigration Office vets all refugee/asylum seekers according to the immigration process outlined earlier. The assumption is they will need to contribute, earn a living, and not be a threat whether they stay & pursue citizenship or not. The only real loophole is vetting for individuals with Temporary Protected Status & asylum status occur while the person is possibly already in the US (or at least outside their home country). Refugees & other immigrants the vetting occurs before they arrive on US soil.

 

[JJ Husker]

Look ya'll need to stop jumping to conclusions about what my opinion must mean.

I am simply saying that I think it is logical and good policy to review the procedures that are in place. Placing a TEMPORARY ban on immigration from these countries is not the end of the American way and not some total hair-brained move. I think it is wise to ascertain if our vetting is thorough enough and if there are reasonable safeguards in place. That is all. I am not proposing that Muslims immigration be banned forever or that Muslims are the only problem. Using the same logic as many seem to be using, should I assume that you would never review policy or make adjustments because we must be dong everything right already?

Ask yourselves a few questions. Where would you feel safer walking down the street- In a small town in Nebraska or in some crime infested slum in an inner city? Why is that? Because you know the potential for a crime is higher in one area than the other. Does that logical conclusion not extend to where terrorists are known to be in higher concentrations? Here's another one- you're going through security at the airport and everyone in line appears to be of Mideastern heritage. Security is obviously overwhelmed and they begin just waiving people through the line. You get on your plane and again your fellow passengers appear to be predominately Mideastern. How comfortable are you? You are lying if you claim that would not influence your feelings of safety on that flight. Who should TPA be more concerned about- The silver haired grandmother in a wheelchair or the 30 year old guy that looks like the prototypical terrorist? You can call that profiling or xenophobia all day long but it is still logical based on who historically has committed terrorist acts on airplanes. You can claim that is not the American way but since when does our way have to avoid the laws of probability and common sense.

There, that ought to get things fired up for awhile. I've got some actual work to get done.

 

[knapplc]

Ask yourselves a few questions. Where would you feel safer walking down the street- In a small town in Nebraska or in some crime infested slum in an inner city?

Quick question on this scenario - what color is my skin?

 

[knapplc]

Getting back to my point on Trump's motives and possible ethics violations.

 

[ColoNoCoHusker]

I am simply saying that I think it is logical and good policy to review the procedures that are in place. Placing a TEMPORARY ban on immigration from these countries is not the end of the American way and not some total hair-brained move. I think it is wise to ascertain if our vetting is thorough enough and if there are reasonable safeguards in place.

Applying this logic to your business: I am going audit the books of your business. It's good practice and every company should do it. I am going to shut down your business while I ascertain whether or not your business and accounting practices follow acceptable and required methodologies.

My issue with your logic is you have made no effort to know the process in place under the previous administration. You assume that because Muslims from bad areas immigrate to this country that our process is NOT constantly reviewed, you also assume it must bad; and you assume this review requires a ban on immigration to determine its efficacy.

I think it's bad form and flawed on your part, as well as a disingenuous effort to remain ignorant on the situation.

 

[JJ Husker]

Are the Syrians coming to America even immigrants? Or are they refugees? Because there's a distinction, and that would throw a wrench into the (weird) claim more Muslims immigrated to America than Christians.

I'd also, still, like to know why we're drawing a distinction between religions.

My question would be how do we know who they are if we don't have proper vetting procedures in place. How do we determine if they are an innocent displaced refugee or a person using that as cover to come here and do horrible things? I don't claim to know the answers of how we currently determine this or what procedures are undertaken but I'm sure not opposed to reviewing them and making the process more stringent if required.

 

[JJ Husker]

I am simply saying that I think it is logical and good policy to review the procedures that are in place. Placing a TEMPORARY ban on immigration from these countries is not the end of the American way and not some total hair-brained move. I think it is wise to ascertain if our vetting is thorough enough and if there are reasonable safeguards in place.

Applying this logic to your business: I am going audit the books of your business. It's good practice and every company should do it. I am going to shut down your business while I ascertain whether or not your business and accounting practices follow acceptable and required methodologies.

My issue with your logic is you have made no effort to know the process in place under the previous administration. You assume that because Muslims from bad areas immigrate to this country that our process is NOT constantly reviewed, you also assume it must bad; and you assume this review requires a ban on immigration to determine its efficacy.

I think it's bad form and flawed on your part, as well as a disingenuous effort to remain ignorant on the situation.

I'm not making the assumption that it is not constantly reviewed. I'm sorry if I have not made the effort to know all the processes of all our federal government. Apparently you have from that position on your high horse. At least we all know where to come ask questions when knowledge of our federal government's inner workings are needed. Thanks for volunteering your infinite expertise in all areas.

 

[ColoNoCoHusker]

I am simply saying that I think it is logical and good policy to review the procedures that are in place. Placing a TEMPORARY ban on immigration from these countries is not the end of the American way and not some total hair-brained move. I think it is wise to ascertain if our vetting is thorough enough and if there are reasonable safeguards in place.

Applying this logic to your business: I am going audit the books of your business. It's good practice and every company should do it. I am going to shut down your business while I ascertain whether or not your business and accounting practices follow acceptable and required methodologies.

My issue with your logic is you have made no effort to know the process in place under the previous administration. You assume that because Muslims from bad areas immigrate to this country that our process is NOT constantly reviewed, you also assume it must bad; and you assume this review requires a ban on immigration to determine its efficacy.

I think it's bad form and flawed on your part, as well as a disingenuous effort to remain ignorant on the situation.

I'm not making the assumption that it is not constantly reviewed. I'm sorry if I have not made the effort to know all the processes of all our federal government. Apparently you have from that position on your high horse. At least we all know where to come ask questions when knowledge of our federal government's inner workings are needed. Thanks for volunteering your infinite expertise in all areas.

I just did basic research that you seem unwilling to do on a topic that you consider to be important. I don't see the snarky sarcasm being necessary but that has become a common theme of yours lately when your ignorance is questioned.

 

[zoogs]

It's odd that you pose so many questions as if they are unanswerable. This thread isn't the first time the process has been outlined by length, not by experts, but by people who have looked it up.

So, continued criticism of the status quo should be directed specifically at that process, and not rely on questions as supporting evidence. Otherwise, it's having a firm stance while also having no interest in supporting it. Which makes it fair to ask, why so firm on the stance?

 

[BigRedBuster]

Look ya'll need to stop jumping to conclusions about what my opinion must mean.

I am simply saying that I think it is logical and good policy to review the procedures that are in place. Placing a TEMPORARY ban on immigration from these countries is not the end of the American way and not some total hair-brained move. I think it is wise to ascertain if our vetting is thorough enough and if there are reasonable safeguards in place. That is all. I am not proposing that Muslims immigration be banned forever or that Muslims are the only problem. Using the same logic as many seem to be using, should I assume that you would never review policy or make adjustments because we must be dong everything right already?

Ask yourselves a few questions. Where would you feel safer walking down the street- In a small town in Nebraska or in some crime infested slum in an inner city? Why is that? Because you know the potential for a crime is higher in one area than the other. Does that logical conclusion not extend to where terrorists are known to be in higher concentrations? Here's another one- you're going through security at the airport and everyone in line appears to be of Mideastern heritage. Security is obviously overwhelmed and they begin just waiving people through the line. You get on your plane and again your fellow passengers appear to be predominately Mideastern. How comfortable are you? You are lying if you claim that would not influence your feelings of safety on that flight. Who should TPA be more concerned about- The silver haired grandmother in a wheelchair or the 30 year old guy that looks like the prototypical terrorist? You can call that profiling or xenophobia all day long but it is still logical based on who historically has committed terrorist acts on airplanes. You can claim that is not the American way but since when does our way have to avoid the laws of probability and common sense.

There, that ought to get things fired up for awhile. I've got some actual work to get done.

I'm trying not to jump to conclusions. That's why I asked my questions.

About the bolded questions in your post. The real question here that would pertain to the discussion is, if you lived in a nice white suburb of Chicago and a black family from inner city moved in next door, would you feel unsafe and should there be a way to ban that family from moving in?