Immigration Ban

[Oade]

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:

1. I think I agree with your first point. I'm not sure how this EO helps, but the fact that it's a Temporary order, and will no longer be in place by the time NU plays our spring game this year, makes me hopeful that something good will come of it.

2. But we are letting people in - on a Case-by-case decision currently....... And in 90 days we'll (presumably) be back to our normal/new process. - I posted an article on the previous page that mentions it.... Case-by-case basis, and considering the backlash so far, I would expect some case-by-case acceptions to be made soon. However, logistically speaking, its only been one working-day for cases to even be reviewed, so hopefully by mid-week we start to see some progress there.

2a. And no, actually you don't (and neither does any refugee) have the right to murder someone down the hall, or even steal from them (just to reduce the severity of the crime for arguments sake), you definitely don't have that right. I think its referred to as "conspiracy of first-degree murder", and you can be sent to prison for it, and lose most all of your freedoms in the process...... You may have the physical ability, but nothing within the spirit and terms of "freedom" allow for you to kill anyone, or even to "conspire", yet there is plenty within the spirit and terms to prevent and protects the right of potential-victims to not be murdered, among other things.

For as disappointing as it is, a temporary policy is not a new thing.

 

[GM_Tood]

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.

If we cannot put the safety of the United States first (for 90 days) so that the freedoms that we all celebrate can continue to be celebrated....I really don't know what else to say. The world has changed, and the gov't we elected to protect our safety and freedoms has to take measures to ensure our safety/freedom.

Military members fight (take a vow) to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, not what is written on a plaque placed on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty.

edit: i see BRI already addressed some of this as well...

 

[ColoNoCoHusker]

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:

That was a horrible video; at no point did Stewart blame BRI so not worth watching

Not picking on you BRI, but the question I and others are asking is HOW does this ban lead to improving our immigration vetting and WHY can't that be done without a unilateral ban? It seems like we can review our immigration procedures and improve our vetting without this ban. I am also not seeing any actual evidence for the direct threat every one of these countries poses.

I'm not trying to belabor the point or pick on you. I just see there being a difference between improving our vetting VS banning immigration/travel. There is nothing that is connecting one to the other atm...

 

[BIGREDIOWAN]

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

This is where the issues lies, you can post one thing, I can post another, so who's right? Hell if I know, but I'm not interested in spending a whole day posting link after link to articles when I'm simply not going to change my mind on some things until I decide to change it, that's my problem, no one else's. The important thing here to realize is I don't see where you're coming from, you don't see where I'm coming from. Our opinions are based on different experiences throughout our lives. We'll have to agree to disagree on some things. If a ban helps make our country safer through revisiting the vetting process and then moving forward with allowing folks to come back into the country then so be it. I'm certainly not okay with a permanent ban unless there is some VERY good reasons for it. I get some folks will be upset, but if making people feel warm and fuzzy by allowing folks in that we shouldn't have because we didn't want to upset some folks by not letting them in leads to innocent lives being taken..............I'm not okay with that either. I get there is a fine line, but my thought process may be different than others. I really don't read the news much anymore or watch it much anymore. Probably because years of seeing stuff go down on the TV, in reference to police, has turned me sour towards the press and what they report.

 

[zoogs]

1. I think I agree with your first point. I'm not sure how this EO helps, but the fact that it's a Temporary order, and will no longer be in place by the time NU plays our spring game this year, makes me hopeful that something good will come of it.

Is it your position that nothing bad has come of it?

What is the "good" that is coming of it?

This is where the issues lies, you can post one thing, I can post another, so who's right?

This cannot be the response! Please, post another thing. It's not impossible to figure out who's right.

We are talking specifically about the facts of the Obama administration's actions. This is a yes-or-no proposition. I agree that opinions on Trump's current policies are another matter.

 

[knapplc]

1. I think I agree with your first point. I'm not sure how this EO helps, but the fact that it's a Temporary order, and will no longer be in place by the time NU plays our spring game this year, makes me hopeful that something good will come of it.

Is it your position that nothing bad has come of it?

What is the "good" that is coming of it?

This is where the issues lies, you can post one thing, I can post another, so who's right?

This cannot be the response! Please, post another thing. It's not impossible to figure out who's right.

We are talking specifically about the facts of the Obama administration's actions. This is a yes-or-no proposition. I agree that opinions on Trump's current policies are another matter.

And why do people think that a man who will bar refugees - men, women and children, and handcuff them, separate families, with no judicial review or oversight, no congressional review or oversight, no intelligence review or oversight, will actually stop this action, voluntarily, in 90 days?

What will happen in that 90 days to lift the ban? Why won't it be lengthened?

 

[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:

That's yet to be seen, this administration better hope it leads to a better process or there will be hell to pay and they'll get trashed even further for it. Why would we continue an unsafe practice if it's seen unsafe by the current administration? That could be considered equally as reckless IMO as an all out ban. Like I said, there is a fine line to walk here and I'm assuming there has been some national security intel brought up that led to this ban that we all aren't completely aware of. It should make folks feel a little better that the Obama administration tagged these same countries as being dangerous, but it doesn't seem to be helping.

Let me ask you this, if it comes up later that there was real intel that led this administration to make this decision and it led to a better/safer process that you can't see until months down the road would you like this decision more?

 

[Oade]

1. I think I agree with your first point. I'm not sure how this EO helps, but the fact that it's a Temporary order, and will no longer be in place by the time NU plays our spring game this year, makes me hopeful that something good will come of it.

Is it your position that nothing bad has come of it?

What is the "good" that is coming of it?

I wouldn't say that the disruption of normal processes is a good thing (both government and social), so by comparison I would call this bad.... I never would have enacted this EO myself, but I can see the desire to limit criminals entering country.

IDK what the good is so far, but if they are able to improve the vetting process in the coming weeks and months, or limit the problems that have plagued Europe's Refugee in recent years, then I would call that a good thing.

 

[GM_Tood]

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.

I am leaning a bit towards a mix of ultra/civic nationalism. America First, and not really concerned with what other countries think. Association of people who identify themselves as belonging to the nation, who have equal and shared political rights, and allegiance to similar political procedures...MAGA

Edit: Might need to take this convo to the other thread

 

[Lil' Red]

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.

If we cannot put the safety of the United States first (for 90 days) so that the freedoms that we all celebrate can continue to be celebrated....I really don't know what else to say. The world has changed, and the gov't we elected to protect our safety and freedoms has to take measures to ensure our safety/freedom.

Military members fight (take a vow) to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, not what is written on a plaque placed on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty.

edit: i see BRI already addressed some of this as well...

Do these bans even make us safer? One of ISIS's main goals has always been to argue that America is at war with Islam rather than terrorism. This ban will certainly help them accomplish that aim.

 

[Oade]

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:

That's been on my mind these past few days. I don't expect it, but what crossed my mind --- Playing devils advocate here / Complete conspiracy theory ---- is maybe this had something to do with the Super Bowl.... How would people feel if Trump had said that they have intelligence of a pending-attack and this EO will help prevent something from happening there. --- Conspiracy theory, I know, I don't see it as the case, but its food for thought.

 

[zoogs]

I am leaning a bit towards a mix of ultra/civic nationalism. America First, and not really concerned with what other countries think. Association of people who identify themselves as belonging to the nation, who have equal and shared political rights, and allegiance to similar political procedures...MAGA

Edit: Might need to take this convo to the other thread

Yes, please point me there

"Ultra" and "civic" make for interesting bedfellows. I'd be interested in seeing you expand on "equal and shared political rights" as well as "similar political procedures". What does "allegiance" to those procedures mean? What are the implications of not being concerned with what other countries think?

Heh, sorry. I guess I ended up asking about everything after all

 

[TGHusker]

Yes, this action was not well thought out - the unintentional consequences will add up. I do believe we need to evaluate the effectiveness of our visa and immigration process but that should be on going regardless of who is president. In his efforts to quickly throw red meat to his supporters, I believe Trump missed the boat on this issue and jumped to quickly. There have been several of his executive actions that I have supported but this one should have been delayed. I think actions like this will stop any momentum he may have during the 'honeymoon' period of his presidency as many repubs in Congress don't agree with this action - they are also bucking him on the 'torture - water boarding issue'.

I think Trump is trying to accomplish to much too quickly and he will (and is) lose any good will along the way. He'd be more effective I think in taking on an issue a week vs doing so many in such a short time span.

Maybe it is his version of 'Shock and Awe' but it comes wt a lot of collateral damage.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I posted this in another thread about Trump and the Press. But, I thought it belonged here too.

A MASS SHOOTING at a Quebec City mosque last night left six people dead and eight wounded. The targeted mosque, the Cultural Islamic Center of Quebec, was the same one at which a severed pig’s head was left during Ramadan last June. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called the episode a “terrorist attack on Muslims.”

Almost immediately, various news outlets and political figures depicted the shooter as Muslim. Right-wing nationalist tabloids in the UK instantly linked it to Islamic violence. Fox News claimed that “witnesses said at least one gunman shouted ‘Allahu akbar!’,” and then added this about the shooter’s national origin:

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer exploited the attack to justify President Trump’s ban on immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries. “It’s a terrible reminder of why we must remain vigilant and why the President is taking steps to be proactive rather than reactive when it comes to our nation’s safety and security,” Spicer said at this afternoon’s briefing when speaking of the Quebec City attack.

But these assertions are utterly false. The suspect is neither Moroccan nor Muslim. The Moroccan individual, Mohamed el Khadir, was actually one of the worshippers at the mosque and called 911 to summon the police, and played no role whatsoever in the shooting.

The actual shooting suspect is 27-year-old Alexandre Bissonnette, a white French Canadian who is, by all appearances, a rabid anti-immigrant nationalist. A leader of a local immigration rights groups, François Deschamps, told a local paper he recognized his photo as an anti-immigrant far-right “troll” who has been hostile to the group online. And Bisonnette’s Facebook page – now taken down but still archived – lists among its “likes” the far right French nationalist Marine Le Pen, Islam critics Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, the Israeli Defense Forces, and Donald J. Trump (he also “likes” the liberal Canadian Party NDP along with more neutral “likes” such as Tom Hanks, the Sopranos and Katy Perry).

And, yet...Spicer has the balls to constantly come on and scold the press for reporting and jumping on false news.

 

[zoogs]

What would the response be had that been a Christian church with a Muslim shooter? This is the same terrorism.

We must keep our heads.

But what must be the terror that Muslisms now feel? They are already a demonized minority -- now, officially by the U.S. administration. Worse, that administration was eager to use this as more fuel for their campaign to portray Muslims as terrorism threats. How can they feel safe?