Immigration Ban

irvinehomeowner said:
I'm taking a guess here but I think Tim was young when 9/11 happened and didn't feel the pain of those who lost their family and friends.

To think that the danger of letting in terrorists is not a high enough ratio to consider is weird to me. Even if only a "couple" people die, preventing that to inconvenience the many who are not citizens is equitable.

That kind of nonchalance about the risk of terror is how 9/11 happened.
Click to expand...

Well, I was younger than I am now. I was 34 then. Was I young?

We've lost more American lives fighting terrorism than we have due to terrorism. And then there are the thousands and thousands more of non-American lives that have been lost.

I do not think we should not consider terrorism. I just think our current policies are enough. When will it be enough for you and R2D?

None of you can say what needs to be changed. Trump has had enough time to figure out how to change the policy. He shouldn't need a "temporary" ban until he figures it out. Not only has he not figured it out, he hasn't mentioned a single concrete change. Think about that, please. Why hasn't he at least floated a few ideas?
 
Ready2Downsize said:
If they are illegally here then they should go.

If they were born here (to illegal aliens or legal citizens) then they are citizens, so they should be allowed to stay.
Click to expand...

Thank you for being clear! Would you mind sharing why this issue is as important to you as it is?
 
Ready2Downsize said:
And tim........ I'm not afraid of anything. I know where I'm going. I know things will get worse. I know the economy is going down big time. I know there is a currency crisis coming. When I don't know, but I know it's coming.

I know there is a plan and I'm going to heaven. I don't really pay a whole lot of attention to Trump, it's out of my hands and it makes no difference what I say or do. It's in God's hands.
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, you still haven't said how you think this all applies to refugees. Should we allow none in?

So you believe in a God. If it is the God of the Bible I am familiar with, have you read the parable of the good Samaritan? How about Matthew 25:40-45 - the "Whatever you did not do for the least of these, you did not do for me" verses? If any of this is in line with your beliefs, how do you reconcile this with your stand on immigration?

Do believe in the power of prayer? If so, then it isn't all out of your hands.

Now I want to ask you what you asked me. If it makes no difference what you say or do, why are you posting here? That is not a challenge; I am just curious.
 
So let's get this clear.

Some here feel that domestic terrorism is more of a danger than foreign terrorism?

So, based on that, we shouldn't worry about foreign terrorism and just let them all in?

How's that for hyperbole?

What I'm really trying to say is that I agree we also have to deal with the issue of domestic terror acts... but given that's as hard as vetting, doesn't the ban make more sense? Instead of spending resources on vetting refugees who are not citizens of our country, we should just focus on investigating those who are?

Let's go back to my bus analogy.

You are told there are 2 of the 50 people on the bus are terrorists. You are also told that 2 of the 10,000 already in the venue are terrorists. What is the best play here?

Hint: It's not doubling the number of terrorists in the venue.

:)
 
I support "extreme vetting" that's already being done for folks from certain countries. I even support limiting refugees. We shouldn't be the world's police and we can't save everyone from their horrible countries. I think what folks here are trying to illustrate, is that this administration's words and actions are inflammatory, poorly considered and executed, and overly broad.
 
C'mon, how do you really "extremely vette" someone from Syria or Somalia?  Do you call the DMV at Aleppo and ask for the guys driving records..do you call the Mogadishu Unified School District headquarters to see if they can email you Mohamed's 8th grade transcript? Most of these 7 countries have little or no government or infrastructure to vette from.  It's all based on the word of the immigrant.  Extreme vetting can be done from Austria but I hesitate to see how it is done from that part of the world.
 
morekaos said:
C'mon, how do you really "extremely vette" someone from Syria or Somalia?  Do you call the DMV at Aleppo and ask for the guys driving records..do you call the Mogadishu Unified School District headquarters to see if they can email you Mohamed's 8th grade transcript? Most of these 7 countries have little or no government or infrastructure to vette from.  It's all based on the word of the immigrant.  Extreme vetting can be done from Austria but I hesitate to see how it is done from that part of the world.
Click to expand...

Not my area of expertise, hence the quotes around "extreme vetting."
 
Perspective said:
morekaos said:
C'mon, how do you really "extremely vette" someone from Syria or Somalia?  Do you call the DMV at Aleppo and ask for the guys driving records..do you call the Mogadishu Unified School District headquarters to see if they can email you Mohamed's 8th grade transcript? Most of these 7 countries have little or no government or infrastructure to vette from.  It's all based on the word of the immigrant.  Extreme vetting can be done from Austria but I hesitate to see how it is done from that part of the world.
Click to expand...

Not my area of expertise, hence the quotes around "extreme vetting."
Click to expand...
Part of the reason for the extreme vetting is to encourage these countries to develop good practices in modern record keeping and law enforcement.  80% of the world's Muslims live in Indonesia, Malaysia, and India.  Those countries have good recordkeeping and effective law enforcement so there is no need for us to do all of the work in vetting their citizens, we can just ask those countries to run a routine background check on a visa applicant.
 
Perspective said:
morekaos said:
C'mon, how do you really "extremely vette" someone from Syria or Somalia?  Do you call the DMV at Aleppo and ask for the guys driving records..do you call the Mogadishu Unified School District headquarters to see if they can email you Mohamed's 8th grade transcript? Most of these 7 countries have little or no government or infrastructure to vette from.  It's all based on the word of the immigrant.  Extreme vetting can be done from Austria but I hesitate to see how it is done from that part of the world.
Click to expand...

Not my area of expertise, hence the quotes around "extreme vetting."
Click to expand...

But do you see my point?  The seven countries are Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. Do you think any of these countries, with the exception of Iran which probably keeps in-depth records of its citizens but I doubt would share them, has the basic infrastructure to be helpful when "extreme vetting" a possible immigrant.  It sort of makes the term useless, hence the move to just not let any of them in. The surest way to not get pregnant is just not to have sex.
 
irvinehomeowner said:
So let's get this clear.

Some here feel that domestic terrorism is more of a danger than foreign terrorism?

So, based on that, we shouldn't worry about foreign terrorism and just let them all in?
Click to expand...

You are jumping to the wrong conclusion. Nobody is suggesting that there is zero danger posed by foreign terrorist. If you are truly concerned about the dangers of having a terrorist attack on domestic soil, than the current immigration ban does not address that.
 
peppy said:
irvinehomeowner said:
So let's get this clear.

Some here feel that domestic terrorism is more of a danger than foreign terrorism?

So, based on that, we shouldn't worry about foreign terrorism and just let them all in?
Click to expand...

You are jumping to the wrong conclusion. Nobody is suggesting that there is zero danger posed by foreign terrorist. If you are truly concerned about the dangers of having a terrorist attack on domestic soil, than the current immigration ban does not address that.
Click to expand...

But it does.  It's not ALL, some would always get through,  but some would HELP. There have been over 70 domestic terrorist attacks by immigrants from these 7 countries since 911.  Let's take it to an extreme to make a point.  If NONE of those immigrants were allowed in than NONE of those attacks would have occurred and it stands to reason if SOME of these immigrants were not allowed in then SOME of these attacks would have been avoided...SOME.
 
morekaos said:
peppy said:
irvinehomeowner said:
So let's get this clear.

Some here feel that domestic terrorism is more of a danger than foreign terrorism?

So, based on that, we shouldn't worry about foreign terrorism and just let them all in?
Click to expand...

You are jumping to the wrong conclusion. Nobody is suggesting that there is zero danger posed by foreign terrorist. If you are truly concerned about the dangers of having a terrorist attack on domestic soil, than the current immigration ban does not address that.
Click to expand...

But it does.  It's not ALL, some would always get through,  but some would HELP. There have been over 70 domestic terrorist attacks by immigrants from these 7 countries since 911.  Let's take it to an extreme to make a point.  If NONE of those immigrants were allowed in than NONE of those attacks would have occurred and it stands to reason if SOME of these immigrants were not allowed in then SOME of these attacks would have been avoided...SOME.
Click to expand...

Yes, and if we completely stopped ALL immigration from ALL countries, we would stop even more attacks by immigrants. And if we stopped letting in refugees, then they could be slaughtered in their own countries. And if we got rid of the free press, then we wouldn't even have to hear about it. And if we killed all our citizens, then we wouldn't have any domestic crime.

As for "extreme vetting," you cannot say whether it can be done for people from certain countries because NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THE HELL THAT TERM MEANS. Until you define it, you can't know where and when you can do it. Can you do "super duper vetting" in all countries? How about "mega awesome, really rad vetting?"

Do you want to stop ALL immigration into the USA? If you do that, we will become a world pariah. It would mean the death of our country. So short of that, what DO you want? For the people that want this ban, when will it be enough? How many more billions of dollars are you willing to spend on this? Did you or your ancestors immigrate here? Why was it okay for them, but not for those who want to come here now?

During election season, people on the left and right talked about how many of Trump's supporters were selfish and lacked compassion. I thought that was an over-generalization. After what people here have to say, I am starting to think it wasn't. Sounds like a lot of people have the attitude of "I got mine here, you go F off and get yours somewhere else." I have been really trying to understand those for the ban, but I think I have hit my limit. I feel like I understand you. And I do not want to live in the world that is in your alls heads. That world is scary and uncaring.
 
irvinehomeowner said:
Let's go back to my bus analogy.

You are told there are 2 of the 50 people on the bus are terrorists. You are also told that 2 of the 10,000 already in the venue are terrorists. What is the best play here?
Click to expand...


WE ALREADY VET the people coming from these 7 countries and from ALL countries. And those procedures were revised by a law that was passed by the Repub Congress and signed by the Dem President in December 2015. What more do you think needs to be done? How will you know when enough has been done?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top