Immigration Ban

tim said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am going to accuse you of hyperbole abuse. This doesn't make a point for you... it just makes your argument YellowFeverish. :)

One question though, why are we responsible for refugees getting slaughtered in their own country? Part of why terrorists hate us is because of our involvement in other countries affairs.

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?"
Click to expand...

Ginormous super extreme double stacked mega hyperbole.

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?
Click to expand...

This wasn't a problem before terrorism. Now that terrorism is an issue, things need to change or be stopped. That's a simple concept.

And it's not stopping all immigration, just the Moanas, we're letting Barbies in left and right. :)

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.
Click to expand...

You keep trying to mix the two. Just because we want to keep the country safe doesn't mean we don't care for others. We could still help, maybe send support to other countries like Mexico to take in refugees... after we build the wall. Okay, I was kidding, I don't think a wall will be that effective for the cost (unless Mexico pays for it).
 
morekaos said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't think any country that people are seeking asylum from will share such records with us.  Doesn't that cover pretty much any refugee?
 
tim said:
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?
Click to expand...
I think this is where we can actually respectfully disagree.  I think your question "What more do you think needs to be done?" is actually pretty good mind opening question.  I think a devils advocate might ask "How can you be so certain that we are doing enough?  Do you know what we are doing?".

Here's where I think people stand:
  -  Some are convinced that our vetting does not need improvement.
  -  Some admit ignorance on the matter, but feel we already do as much as reasonably possible.
  -  Some admit ignorance on the matter, but feel we should investigate to see if we can make any improvements and apply them if reasonable.
  -  Some are convinced that we don't do enough.

IMO, we are all ignorant on the matter.  Some of us want more peace of mind before we allow strangers from a dangerous part of town into our house.
 
Loco_local said:
Immigrants are horrible

Bring back Claim Jumper, Marie Calendar and Bob's Big Boy

#MAGA (aka let salt and cholesterol kill you instead)
Click to expand...
Not sure if that's the immigrants fault or if it's the greedy overlord's fault.
 
No, lets take the Philippines, a country I am very familiar with.  Lots of Islamic extreme terrorism in the southern Islands and Mindanao.  I have had quite a few relative immigrate (legally) over the years, including my parents.  The country turned over quite a bit of records when they were vetted. It's not a first world place and they had no problem co-operating with the US
 
spootieho said:
morekaos said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't think any country that people are seeking asylum from will share such records with us.  Doesn't that cover pretty much any refugee?
Click to expand...

But  the administration is cool if they are Christian. How do you prove that if these countries cannot provide any credible vetting information? Eat some bacon at the port of entry and you are in?
 
peppy said:
spootieho said:
morekaos said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't think any country that people are seeking asylum from will share such records with us.  Doesn't that cover pretty much any refugee?
Click to expand...

But  the administration is cool if they are Christian. How do you prove that if these countries cannot provide any credible vetting information? Eat some bacon at the port of entry and you are in?
Click to expand...

That's kind of what they do...

Minnesota attacker asked victims if they were Muslim

ST. CLOUD, Minn. ? A federal law enforcement source tells CBS News that the deceased suspect in a Minnesota mall attack that wounded eight Saturday, was asking people if they were Muslim and stabbing those who said they were not.

Officials said the man has had interactions with police in the past, including recently, but the source could not yet characterize the nature of those interactions.

The father of the suspect has identified him as a 22-year-old college student.

Ahmed Adan told the Star Tribune of Minneapolis that police told him Saturday night that his son, Dahir A. Adan, died at Crossroads Center mall in St. Cloud.

He says police didn?t mention the attack on the mall, but they seized photos and other materials from the family?s apartment.

Authorities haven?t publicly identified the attacker.

Ahmed Adan, who is Somali, says his son came to the U.S. 15 years ago and was was a student at St. Cloud Technical and Community College. He told the Star Tribune he had ?no suspicion? that his son might have been involved in terrorist activity.

All nine victims -- seven men, a woman and a 15-year-old girl -- were treated at hospitals for wounds that weren?t life-threatening, St. Cloud police Chief Blair Anderson said at a news conference Sunday. Three remained hospitalized. The others were released.
 
peppy said:
But  the administration is cool if they are Christian. How do you prove that if these countries cannot provide any credible vetting information? Eat some bacon at the port of entry and you are in?
Click to expand...
As stated, there's really no hope for you.  (nor the people who feel the need to hit "thank you" on your posts)
 
morekaos said:
No, lets take the Philippines, a country I am very familiar with.  Lots of Islamic extreme terrorism in the southern Islands and Mindanao.  I have had quite a few relative immigrate (legally) over the years, including my parents.  The country turned over quite a bit of records when they were vetted. It's not a first world place and they had no problem co-operating with the US
Click to expand...
Do they come here as refugees?
 
morekaos said:
OK, there's 1... are the other 50,000 also 10 year translators living in the green zone?
Click to expand...

Like the 1 in 50,000 college student terrorist you just wrote about

(I'm making up numbers because i have to idea how many people applied for asylum, how many people were approved and how many actually are living here)
 
spootieho said:
Loco_local said:
Immigrants are horrible

Bring back Claim Jumper, Marie Calendar and Bob's Big Boy

#MAGA (aka let salt and cholesterol kill you instead)
Click to expand...
Not sure if that's the immigrants fault or if it's the greedy overlord's fault.
Click to expand...

It's the fault of both.  Greed is good, right?  If it weren't for refugees, no one here would be eating pho.

If it weren't for immigrants, we could eat 5000 calorie meals instead of sending our children to private tutors.
 
Loco_local said:
spootieho said:
On a side note:  My wife came to the US as a war refugee.  She also supports the ban.
Click to expand...

Anither case of Me First, right?
Click to expand...

Not at all. My parents applied properly, waited in line with everyone else. Took them 10 years to get citizenship. They got theirs the legal way, and yes they were not allowed in right away, they waited for that honor too. They are for the ban.
 
morekaos said:
Loco_local said:
spootieho said:
On a side note:  My wife came to the US as a war refugee.  She also supports the ban.
Click to expand...

Anither case of Me First, right?
Click to expand...

Not at all. My parents applied properly, waited in line with everyone else. Took them 10 years to get citizenship. They got theirs the legal way, and yes they were not allowed in right away, they waited for that honor too. They are for the ban.
Click to expand...

A lot of people I know came to this country this way, including my in-laws (who are also for the ban). They waited for their turn in line, but they were fortunate that they were able to wait, i.e. they were not from a war torn country. This discussion is not about these types of immigrants, but refugees.

Keeping our country safe is everyone's priority. Throughout our history we have welcomed refugees, especially from war torn nations. Imagine if we had stopped refugees from Vietnam during the war because we didn't know who was a Viet-Kong and killing our men or refused entry to the German immigrants after the war because we didn't want Nazi's on our soil.
 
My parents applied properly, waited in line with everyone else. Took them 10 years to get citizenship. They got theirs the legal way,
Click to expand...

The problem is that there is no legal way for Syrian refugees. The administration has said absoluely NO, under no circumstances, no exceptions.

Mexicans don't have it much better. They can wait in line, but they will be 80 years old before they allowed to immigrate legally without a special skill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top