Immigration Ban

[ZRod]

I haven't had a chance to read the replys but I hope this is a good discussion, looks like it is.

So here's some numbers I was able to put together from running through wikipedia and islamic terrorist attacks post 9/11. Of the 43 terrorist attacks related to islamic extremists in, let's call them Anglo countries, (Europe, US, Australia, Canada, and exluding Russia), 22 involved a perpetrator not from these regions. Countries they came from: Jamaica(1), India(no count), Iraq(3), Kosovo(1), Iran(2), Kuwait(1), Morocco(at least 4), Pakistan(1), Turkey(1), Afghanistan(1), Somalia(1), Tunisia(1), and Syria (no countn more than 1), Algeria (no count, maybe more than 1).

Of the 7 attacks on US soil, 2 involved foreign nationals.

Many attacks were from second generation citizens, I would say atleast 40% (conservative estimate).

All but one were males (one was a 15 year old boy), almost all in their 20's or 30's.

 

[Landlord]

My problem is Democrats having acknowledge a few things here:

1. President Obama banned folks coming from Iraq for 6 months in 2011. Some of those not allowed in had helped our military in some capacity. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/barack-obama-ban-refugees-did-iraq-iraqi-muslim-trump-jimmy-carter-iran-iranian-immigration/

2. President Clinton even spoke along similar lines all the way back in 1995 from what I understand and wanted to get aggressive with terrorist issues. I've just seen some stuff pop up here and there. I was 15 so I don't remember the speech, just seen some headlines pop up so I could off on this.

3. This ban is for 90 days, not eternity, that hasn't been admitted by democrats. You are acting like it's the end of the world. If we can make our vetting process better, we need to.

The differences between Obama's ban and this one are as follows.

1. It was a response to a specific terrorist threat of Iraqis in Bowling Green who slipped in and were planning a plot.

2. It only effected refugees trying to gain asylum here. It did not have any effect on people with visas or green cards - aka, people who were coming home to the United States.

3. It led to actual reform of the refugee vetting process, which I suppose we will wait to see if Trump's plan does as well (in a constitutional manner).

4. Obama's hault was for one country for 60 days. Trump's is for 90 days for 6 countries, but Syria, who's citizens are in desperate need of aid, is indefinitely banned.

I agree about unconstitutional executive orders, it was my biggest complaint of the previous two Presidents as well.

However, I think by allowing even just one "refugee" (or immigrant of any sort into the country) that doesn't have the interest of the Constitution in their intentions is FAR more dangerous to the constitution than a temporary-ban and improved-vetting process.

We all have the Freedom of Religion, so if a certain refugee or immigrant supports oppressing people for choosing a different faction of Islam (which is sort of the big part of the issue) or for social freedoms we have here in the US, then they should not be allowed in. If they do not support the laws of the Constitution fully, then they should go elsewhere.... And if even just one Terrorist slips through the cracks, like what looks to be the case in Canada this weekend, then it undermines everyone's freedoms.

The Constitution allows people the freedom to not have the interests of the Constitution in mind. That's the beautiful thing about it. Obviously, we don't want terrorists here, and we don't want people who won't be law-abiding, but two things to that point:

1. Again - the refugee vetting is about as good as can be. 99.99999% of refugees who have made it here have been law-abiding citizens.

2. Freedom comes at the cost of safety. There is nothing stopping me from walking down the hall and murdering my office mates right now. We have to decide if safety is more important, because you can't have complete freedom and complete safety in the same social structure. It's impossible to be 100% certain that everyone here is 'good', that can't ever be achieved, so should we not let anyone in? I was under the assumption that freedom was the overriding quality we fought for in America. This EO and the arguments of many (not accusing you), seem to suggest that freedom should take a back seat to safety.

Also, to those accusing BRI of being personally responsible as a Trump voter, 3:43 here:

 

[knapplc]

Can anyone enlighten me on whether or not in previous detentions/interviews a refuge/immigrant was asked specifically "what their feelings were on Obamas' America"? Seems odd to me that one of the questions being asked of these folks is what they think of Trumps leadership.

Seems cult-like, and knowing him as we do at this point, he doesn't exactly have a positive bias toward anyone who disagrees with him.

I have no idea, but I personally don't like that question either. How is it relevant?

It seems downright fascist.

We are rapidly approaching a world in which fealty to the Executive is a requirement. All of us can choose to tolerate this, or not. We cannot be so dense so as not to recognize the erosion of liberty when we see it.

The fact that there have been protests at these levels since November, without military/executive punishments for protesting, proves we are not even remotely close to a fascist level.

I would agree with this. But it's also better to stop Trump from going down a totalitarian (I hate the term "Fascist" since everyone's a Fascist these days) path when he's taken a couple of steps rather than letting him get a mile down the road before standing against him.

 

[Husker Red Til Dead]

Can anyone enlighten me on whether or not in previous detentions/interviews a refuge/immigrant was asked specifically "what their feelings were on Obamas' America"? Seems odd to me that one of the questions being asked of these folks is what they think of Trumps leadership.

Seems cult-like, and knowing him as we do at this point, he doesn't exactly have a positive bias toward anyone who disagrees with him.

I have no idea, but I personally don't like that question either. How is it relevant?

We are rapidly approaching a world in which fealty to the Executive is a requirement. All of us can choose to tolerate this, or not. We cannot be so dense so as not to recognize the erosion of liberty when we see it.

Spot on sir!

 

[GM_Tood]

Can anyone enlighten me on whether or not in previous detentions/interviews a refuge/immigrant was asked specifically "what their feelings were on Obamas' America"? Seems odd to me that one of the questions being asked of these folks is what they think of Trumps leadership.

Seems cult-like, and knowing him as we do at this point, he doesn't exactly have a positive bias toward anyone who disagrees with him.

I have no idea, but I personally don't like that question either. How is it relevant?

It seems downright fascist.

We are rapidly approaching a world in which fealty to the Executive is a requirement. All of us can choose to tolerate this, or not. We cannot be so dense so as not to recognize the erosion of liberty when we see it.

The fact that there have been protests at these levels since November, without military/executive punishments for protesting, proves we are not even remotely close to a fascist level.

I would agree with this. But it's also better to stop Trump from going down a totalitarian (I hate the term "Fascist" since everyone's a Fascist these days) path when he's taken a couple of steps rather than letting him get a mile down the road before standing against him.

Would you consider him/agenda along the lines of ultra nationalism?

 

[knapplc]

Look at the date on this - last November, a week after the election. Trump hadn't even taken power yet, and already people were seeing the path he intended.

How much further down this path does he need to go before people stop defending him? Unharden your hearts, FFS.

 

[Husker Red Til Dead]

Can anyone enlighten me on whether or not in previous detentions/interviews a refuge/immigrant was asked specifically "what their feelings were on Obamas' America"? Seems odd to me that one of the questions being asked of these folks is what they think of Trumps leadership.

Seems cult-like, and knowing him as we do at this point, he doesn't exactly have a positive bias toward anyone who disagrees with him.

I have no idea, but I personally don't like that question either. How is it relevant?

It seems downright fascist.

We are rapidly approaching a world in which fealty to the Executive is a requirement. All of us can choose to tolerate this, or not. We cannot be so dense so as not to recognize the erosion of liberty when we see it.

The fact that there have been protests at these levels since November, without military/executive punishments for protesting, proves we are not even remotely close to a fascist level.

Good point as well!

 

[zoogs]

The fact that there have been protests at these levels since November, without military/executive punishments for protesting, proves we are not even remotely close to a fascist level.

I did not make the claim that we are there already; hence, "approach". The intent is staring us in the face. The assault on the independent media has already begun; not with fact-based counter-arguments, but with calls for journalistic outlets to change ownership and for journalists to be fired.

If support for the executive is not a requirement, then this is not a question that is asked of foreign immigrants. A world where we value a free-thinking citizenry is not one in which the American people are told to get their truth directly from the President.

It has started there, and it will accelerate as far as we are willing to tolerate it. Niemöller is quite relevant.

 

[Lil' Red]

The fact that there have been protests at these levels since November, without military/executive punishments for protesting, proves we are not even remotely close to a fascist level.

I did not make the claim that we are there already; hence, "approach". The intent is staring us in the face. The assault on the independent media has already begun; not with fact-based counter-arguments, but with calls for journalistic outlets to change ownership and for journalists to be fired.

If support for the executive is not a requirement, then this is not a question that is asked of foreign immigrants. A world where we value a free-thinking citizenry is not one in which the American people are told to get their truth directly from the President.

It has started there, and it will accelerate as far as we are willing to tolerate it. Niemöller is quite relevant.

Exactly. The fact that the president continues to refer to the media as the 'opposition party' should be alarming to everyone:

 

[zoogs]

Would you consider him/agenda along the lines of ultra nationalism?

I would say so, Tood, and I'm curious about where you stand.

I don't believe this is what Trump is all about. However, I do think he recognizes how useful it is to him. And he has empowered people for whom this is core. The reasonable people in his administration are not, by comparison, the shot callers.

"Total allegiance to the country" is not a normal call to action made by a President at his inauguration. Especially where allegiance to country plainly means allegiance to his administration.

 

[knapplc]

I would agree with this. But it's also better to stop Trump from going down a totalitarian (I hate the term "Fascist" since everyone's a Fascist these days) path when he's taken a couple of steps rather than letting him get a mile down the road before standing against him.

Would you consider him/agenda along the lines of ultra nationalism?

Maybe? I honestly don't know. I consider Trump himself an egoist, but Bannon is the scary wildcard here. I don't know enough about him to make an informed call. I can say this - nothing I've read about Bannon says to me what I think America should stand for. Great Melting Pot, moral leader, doing things the right way, etc.

 

[BIGREDIOWAN]

My problem is Democrats having acknowledge a few things here:

1. President Obama banned folks coming from Iraq for 6 months in 2011. Some of those not allowed in had helped our military in some capacity. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/barack-obama-ban-refugees-did-iraq-iraqi-muslim-trump-jimmy-carter-iran-iranian-immigration/

2. President Clinton even spoke along similar lines all the way back in 1995 from what I understand and wanted to get aggressive with terrorist issues. I've just seen some stuff pop up here and there. I was 15 so I don't remember the speech, just seen some headlines pop up so I could off on this.

3. This ban is for 90 days, not eternity, that hasn't been admitted by democrats. You are acting like it's the end of the world. If we can make our vetting process better, we need to.

The differences between Obama's ban and this one are as follows.

1. It was a response to a specific terrorist threat of Iraqis in Bowling Green who slipped in and were planning a plot.

2. It only effected refugees trying to gain asylum here. It did not have any effect on people with visas or green cards - aka, people who were coming home to the United States.

3. It led to actual reform of the refugee vetting process, which I suppose we will wait to see if Trump's plan does as well (in a constitutional manner).

4. Obama's hault was for one country for 60 days. Trump's is for 90 days for 6 countries, but Syria, who's citizens are in desperate need of aid, is indefinitely banned.

I agree about unconstitutional executive orders, it was my biggest complaint of the previous two Presidents as well.

However, I think by allowing even just one "refugee" (or immigrant of any sort into the country) that doesn't have the interest of the Constitution in their intentions is FAR more dangerous to the constitution than a temporary-ban and improved-vetting process.

We all have the Freedom of Religion, so if a certain refugee or immigrant supports oppressing people for choosing a different faction of Islam (which is sort of the big part of the issue) or for social freedoms we have here in the US, then they should not be allowed in. If they do not support the laws of the Constitution fully, then they should go elsewhere.... And if even just one Terrorist slips through the cracks, like what looks to be the case in Canada this weekend, then it undermines everyone's freedoms.

The Constitution allows people the freedom to not have the interests of the Constitution in mind. That's the beautiful thing about it. Obviously, we don't want terrorists here, and we don't want people who won't be law-abiding, but two things to that point:

1. Again - the refugee vetting is about as good as can be. 99.99999% of refugees who have made it here have been law-abiding citizens.

2. Freedom comes at the cost of safety. There is nothing stopping me from walking down the hall and murdering my office mates right now. We have to decide if safety is more important, because you can't have complete freedom and complete safety in the same social structure. It's impossible to be 100% certain that everyone here is 'good', that can't ever be achieved, so should we not let anyone in? I was under the assumption that freedom was the overriding quality we fought for in America. This EO and the arguments of many (not accusing you), seem to suggest that freedom should take a back seat to safety.

Also, to those accusing BRI of being personally responsible as a Trump voter, 3:43 here:

His ban of Iraqi immigrants was for 6 months from everything I've read. During a time we were at war in the region so I could see where folks might say that's dangerous as well because folks fleeing from there were in need of our assistance during that time. I think the green card thing was a disaster and that can't happen again.

In reference to the vetting process and the "good as it can be" comment. We need to constantly evaluate what we're doing here as a country in response to changing threats around the globe. Thinking like that can lead to problems and instead of saying that you should be asking, "can we do more to ensure our safety?" If this action leads to a safer nation then the process was worth evaluating. I do not like that folks that were "coming home" were affected by this situation. That was a major mess up in this situation regardless of whether they were checking their status again or not. That probably could've been done to some extent at the administrative level.

Lastly, thanks for the video, I think some folks need to watch that.

 

[BIGREDIOWAN]

Our borders need to be secured, but we also need to enforce the laws on the books. We don't do that now which has led to the problem being on such a large scale. I can stop an illegal alien on a traffic stop and there is nothing I can do about it and ICE won't help me. So I issue them a ticket for something like no driver's license, impound their vehicle and tell them to take a walk. So unless I stop a van load, truck load, etc with 20 or more illegal aliens in it ICE simply doesn't care. Well, that's a problem IMO and it needs addressed. If that means hiring more ICE agents then so be it. So increasing the border patrol and ICE agents which Trump has mentioned is a logical step. Building a "wall" may not help the problem. I have no idea, I know on some parts of the border illegal aliens can just walk across the border so it may help in those areas. That's a problem considering terrorists could/may come into the United States via Mexico.

So, I guess I have to ask, what would you like to see happen if you stop a person who you suspect is illegal?

ICE should come out to our location, take information from this individual to register them and then get them on the road to citizenship.

OK...I can handle that.

But, correct me if I'm wrong, but at this time, there isn't a road to citizenship that this person can be put on.

I know one side in the past few elections has talked about a fast track to citizenship and the other side ridiculed it and voted for the guy who talked about having a deportation force and deporting millions of people who are here illegal.

Nope, there isn't, but Trump has backed off of deporting everyone from what I understand. He's mainly talking about those that are criminals from what I've heard. Do we want those folks here? I personally don't, we've got enough criminals at this point.

I do recall something Trump or someone on his team stated that being in the US illegally is by definition a criminal act when they were out here campaigning. Not finding the link but there needs to a distinction of what constitutes "criminal". I do volunteer work that has illegal/undocumented aliens as a large part of the serviced contingency. In my experience, these are the people that we should want to keep in this country. They are typically (99/100) better contributors & law-abiders than people born here.

Oh I agree with you, just simply being here while illegal isn't enough for me to say they need to go. Give them a path, I'm sure most are willing to take it if you can get past the trust issues with those folks. That's one of the difficult parts. Now if they are someone who's been charged or convicted of another crime like say, drug dealing, then by all means. Get those folks out of here IMO.

Can you point me to where Trump has ever talked about giving them a path to citizenship?

I don't know what you're trying to prove here, he hasn't talked about it to the best of my knowledge. He's softened his approach to it and I've linked that below, it is from August 2016 so it's what it is. I can't take my vote back and I would've still have voted for him at this point instead of Hillary if that's what you're getting at. That should tell you how much I despise that lady. Now if Biden would've ran, I would've voted for him without a doubt.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-campaign-softens-tone-on-illegal-immigration/article/2599868

Let me expand further and clarify my thoughts on immigration and Trumps approach. I personally believed once he got into office he would see how big of an issue deporting millions of illegal immigrants would be and would have no choice, but to change his thought process to handle such a huge issue. I personally liked his aggressive thoughts towards it because I knew even when it did/does change to him having no choice but to offer a path. He would still do something unlike past presidents have. Obama was criticized for his lack of approach to illegal immigration and his stance on border security, one of the negatives of his presidency. Trump has been president for 10 days, so to expect him to have already changed his approach on this is pretty unrealistic. He's still getting his feet under him and will for some time. If he doesn't change his approach I was wrong with my assumption, but I know some on the job training and experiences will lead to him changing his stance on things because he'll have no choice but to change his stance.

 

[zoogs]

His ban of Iraqi immigrants was for 6 months from everything I've read. During a time we were at war in the region so I could see where folks might say that's dangerous as well because folks fleeing from there were in need of our assistance during that time. I think the green card thing was a disaster and that can't happen again.

I suspect Landlord's post covers these points, but anyway, Foreign Policy outlines the differences: http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

This is not a blanket defense of Obama doctrine, but it's the height of gaslighting on the part of the new administration to suggest it's in any way comparable. A specific counter to the part of your post I quoted:

Contrary to Trump's Sunday statement and the repeated claims of his defenders, the Obama administration did not ban visas for refugees from Iraq for six months. For one thing, refugees don't travel on visas. More importantly, while the flow of Iraqi refugees slowed significantly during the Obama administrations review, refugees continued to be admitted to the United States during that time, and there was not a single month in which no Iraqis arrived here. In other words, while there were delays in processing, there was no outright ban.

WaPo has its own article, calling Trump's claim "facile": https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/29/trumps-facile-claim-that-his-refugee-policy-is-similar-to-obama-in-2011/?utm_term=.96cbb60dc6bb

 

[BigRedBuster]

Our borders need to be secured, but we also need to enforce the laws on the books. We don't do that now which has led to the problem being on such a large scale. I can stop an illegal alien on a traffic stop and there is nothing I can do about it and ICE won't help me. So I issue them a ticket for something like no driver's license, impound their vehicle and tell them to take a walk. So unless I stop a van load, truck load, etc with 20 or more illegal aliens in it ICE simply doesn't care. Well, that's a problem IMO and it needs addressed. If that means hiring more ICE agents then so be it. So increasing the border patrol and ICE agents which Trump has mentioned is a logical step. Building a "wall" may not help the problem. I have no idea, I know on some parts of the border illegal aliens can just walk across the border so it may help in those areas. That's a problem considering terrorists could/may come into the United States via Mexico.

So, I guess I have to ask, what would you like to see happen if you stop a person who you suspect is illegal?

ICE should come out to our location, take information from this individual to register them and then get them on the road to citizenship.

OK...I can handle that.

But, correct me if I'm wrong, but at this time, there isn't a road to citizenship that this person can be put on.

I know one side in the past few elections has talked about a fast track to citizenship and the other side ridiculed it and voted for the guy who talked about having a deportation force and deporting millions of people who are here illegal.

Nope, there isn't, but Trump has backed off of deporting everyone from what I understand. He's mainly talking about those that are criminals from what I've heard. Do we want those folks here? I personally don't, we've got enough criminals at this point.

I do recall something Trump or someone on his team stated that being in the US illegally is by definition a criminal act when they were out here campaigning. Not finding the link but there needs to a distinction of what constitutes "criminal". I do volunteer work that has illegal/undocumented aliens as a large part of the serviced contingency. In my experience, these are the people that we should want to keep in this country. They are typically (99/100) better contributors & law-abiders than people born here.

Oh I agree with you, just simply being here while illegal isn't enough for me to say they need to go. Give them a path, I'm sure most are willing to take it if you can get past the trust issues with those folks. That's one of the difficult parts. Now if they are someone who's been charged or convicted of another crime like say, drug dealing, then by all means. Get those folks out of here IMO.

Can you point me to where Trump has ever talked about giving them a path to citizenship?

I don't know what you're trying to prove here, he hasn't talked about it to the best of my knowledge. He's softened his approach to it and I've linked that below, it is from August 2016 so it's what it is. I can't take my vote back and I would've still have voted for him at this point instead of Hillary if that's what you're getting at. That should tell you how much I despise that lady. Now if Biden would've ran, I would've voted for him without a doubt.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-campaign-softens-tone-on-illegal-immigration/article/2599868

Let me expand further and clarify my thoughts on immigration and Trumps approach. I personally believed once he got into office he would see how big of an issue deporting millions of illegal immigrants would be and would have no choice, but to change his thought process to handle such a huge issue. I personally liked his aggressive thoughts towards it because I knew even when it did/does change to him having no choice but to offer a path. He would still do something unlike past presidents have. Obama was criticized for his lack of approach to illegal immigration and his stance on border security, one of the negatives of his presidency. Trump has been president for 10 days, so to expect him to have already changed his approach on this is pretty unrealistic. He's still getting his feet under him and will for some time. If he doesn't change his approach I was wrong with my assumption, but I know some on the job training and experiences will lead to him changing his stance on things because he'll have no choice but to change his stance.

I'm not trying to "prove" anything. I'm having a conversation.

It has been stated by someone else earlier in this thread:

There's a few problems I have with immigration at large:1. Our path to citizenship sucks and it's way too hard for good people to enter the country legally.

2. Our ability to prevent bad immigration sucks and it's way too easy for bad people to enter the country illegally.

3. People who attempt to solve problem #1 by exacerbating #2 are part of the problem.

4. People who don't want to solve #1 until #2 is solved are part of the problem.

Well, Trump has definitely done things to correct #2. He campaigned on it EXTREMELY heavily. We have seeing his actions since coming into office that prove he is serious about taking care of #2 even if anyone disagrees with his methods.

This person has stated that if you are not someone who is willing to work towards BOTH #1 and #2, then you are part of the problem.

I'm simply asking if you have seen anything from him pertaining to #1....or, is he part of the problem?

Your example of the traffic stop made me think about this.