Immigration Ban

[Oade]

Fair enough, and I'm not trying to pick on you with this post, just a general observation of mine.... Holding representatives is necessary and should be never-ending, so why weren't there these same level of protests happening when Obama was only admitting less than 50 Syrian refugees per year? Where was the up-roar then?

My position is that the U.S. under Obama did FAR less than its far share of shouldering the refugee burden in Syria.

Although I would also point out that he tried to increase these numbers. It wasn't easy, as low as they were. The opposition was fierce. Where did that opposition come from?

Does anyone on here really think that Trump's administration is going to have admitted any less than 50 Syrian refugee's by the end of the year?

This is not the right comparison. What was the target number for 2017 on the other side?

I would say that the opposition stemmed from both sides of the aisle - from both sides hoping to avoid committing to another endless war.

I'm not trying to compare anything in all honesty. I was pointing out that a lot of people on here and otherwise are acting like we aren't allowing any refugees in this year. Or that what we had been doing for the previous decade was good. Which is not true.... We will have allowed more Syrians in, and possibly better screened, by the end of the year than all but maybe one year of Obama's tenure combined. Why protest on end about that?

Of course this should not be a numbers game, and we should help as many people in need as possible. Putting a limit on it is silly, but so is not fully addressing the true reasons behind why these people are refugees to start with. Nobody on either side of the aisle seems to have a great idea behind addressing that though.

I think we can all agree we want to see these people helped, and in the end, I fully expect them to be.... For as disappointed in the EO as I am, I also won't pretend that this policy is going to last Trumps entire tenure (unless Trump is impeached within the next 90 days).... Things are going to get sorted out soon, and hopefully they come up with a better policy than what has been in place for the previous decade. If they can do that, then I can be patient for 3 months.

 

[Enhance]

Refugees entering the U.S. already face a rigorous vetting process

Apologies if a repost but it hits on some of the processes mentioned in this thread.

 

[TAKODA]

sh*t Knapp, I can't keep up on answering the q"s your throwing at me with this mob device.

1. If there are law enforcement officers at any level and they are US citizens, they should be held to the laws of the land. If it's a corrupt division or unit, shut their assed down!

2. If you are a refugee that commits a crime on our soil, and you apprise an officer of this, it's 'thanks, have a nice day' exaggeration a little but not by much!

3. My opinion on SB is not prudent to my views that we need to improve our vetting process. However, describing my views on an open forum here would pale some of the more colorful post you have read in the recent past

 

[TAKODA]

Edit~ double post

Fudge

 

[Landlord]

I've got two things to add.

1) I was pretty young and ignorant of politics during most of Obama's tenure, and if I had been who I am now, I would have been greatly disappointed with their lack of help towards the Syrian crisis. Obama should have done more, America should have done more. America should still be doing far, far more.

2) Maybe this makes me a bad American, but I would give up my life for a refugee way, way, way before I would give up my life for a middle-class American. I do not hold it against anyone that America and it's citizens are their first priority above others, but I don't have the same priority. The Christ compels me to give deference to the Samaritan before the Jew, to serve the poor before the rich, to lay myself down for the lame before the able, to fight for the oppressed more than the privileged.

 

[teachercd]

TAKODA, do you think Steve Bannon is racist?

This question has always interested me, not about Bannon but about all of us.

 

[TAKODA]

I've got two things to add.

1) I was pretty young and ignorant of politics during most of Obama's tenure, and if I had been who I am now, I would have been greatly disappointed with their lack of help towards the Syrian crisis. Obama should have done more, America should have done more. America should still be doing far, far more.

2) Maybe this makes me a bad American, but I would give up my life for a refugee way, way, way before I would give up my life for a middle-class American. I do not hold it against anyone that America and it's citizens are their first priority above others, but I don't have the same priority. The Christ compels me to give deference to the Samaritan before the Jew, to serve the poor before the rich, to lay myself down for the lame before the able, to fight for the oppressed more than the privileged.

I take no offense with your desire to help those less fortunate! You should be commended for holding that view! I see plenty of our own citizens in dire straights and as you, I try to give them a hand up, not a hand out!

 

[knapplc]

sh*t Knapp, I can't keep up on answering the q"s your throwing at me with this mob device.

1. If there are law enforcement officers at any level and they are US citizens, they should be held to the laws of the land. If it's a corrupt division or unit, shut their assed down!

2. If you are a refugee that commits a crime on our soil, and you apprise an officer of this, it's 'thanks, have a nice day' exaggeration a little but not by much!

3. My opinion on SB is not prudent to my views that we need to improve our vetting process. However, describing my views on an open forum here would pale some of the more colorful post you have read in the recent past

Your opinion of Bannon is directly correlated to your views on the subject.

Do you think he is racist?

 

[TAKODA]

Sexiest, bigot, racist wannabe!

Nice as I can word it at the moment!

So, knowing that, how does that change your perception of me and my opinion on creating a stronger and better vetting process?

 

[knapplc]

Sexiest, bigot, racist wannabe!

Nice as I can word it at the moment!

So, knowing that, how does that change your perception of me and opinion on creating a stronger and better vetting process?

It makes me wonder if you're forgetting that when you analyze why this EO that shuts down a program that has not allowed a terrorist into the United States in 15+ years.

 

[TAKODA]

Not allowed to forget!

The why's they do what they do don't cover the whys I feel we need to do more!

Just that simple!

 

[zoogs]

I would say that the opposition stemmed from both sides of the aisle - from both sides hoping to avoid committing to another endless war.

Opposition to refugees?

We will have allowed more Syrians in, and possibly better screened, by the end of the year than all but maybe one year of Obama's tenure combined. Why protest on end about that?

You're attempting to argue that the Trump administration will represent a positive development in the amount of Syrian refugees taken in. This is an incredible argument.

You know that Obama ramped up the refugee influx and was eager to increase it even more dramatically. You know where the opposition has come from. You know what Trump campaigned on and what he is doing now.

 

[ColoNoCoHusker]

I am happy to be a broken here. What evidence is there the process is/has been broken? How does a ban make it better/easier/faster/cheaper/more reliable to fix the vetting process?

The analogies are endless but, as with anything, if it cannot be Quantified (i.e measured in real numbers), how can anyone hope to make it better? Whether it's football scores, number of terrorist acts by refugees, number of terrorist attacks by immigrants, improving business revenue, etc. the process of improvement is the same. Otherwise it is nothing more than propaganda, period. This goes for ANY party/candidate.

I am completely in favor of continuous improvement of our immigration & refugee vetting process. Let's define the problem, though. There is no valid reason to presuppose the process is completely broken and this ban is valid based on any Quantitative measure. Couple that with the history of the EO's authors/sponsors and this carries every indication of being racially or religiously motivated.

 

[TGHusker]

Sexiest, bigot, racist wannabe!

Nice as I can word it at the moment!

So, knowing that, how does that change your perception of me and opinion on creating a stronger and better vetting process?

It makes me wonder if you're forgetting that when you analyze why this EO that shuts down a program that has not allowed a terrorist into the United States in 15+ years.

This got me thinking and maybe someone can verify -- have all of the terrorist acts done in the USA since 911 been from 'home grown' terrorists?

Boston

shoe bomber

Ft Hood

a couple of other military ones that I can't think of - I think Tenn and Maryland or Virginia

Dallas - the one were a cop killed the guy before he could do damage

San Bernardino

Orlando

If so, maybe there needs to be more emphasis looking inwardly. I believe in strong vetting and I think this EO will eventually go back to a normal routine, but what are we doing about vetting citizens who leave the country to go to a terrorist friendly nation and come back radicalized, who have mental issues and yet can buy a gun, etc.

 

[Fru]

I am happy to be a broken here. What evidence is there the process is/has been broken? How does a ban make it better/easier/faster/cheaper/more reliable to fix the vetting process?

It doesn't. It's a distraction issue to get the rubes riled up and anyone that opposes it hates safety, security and America.