Immigration Ban

Explain this one to me.

0 deaths from terrorists posing as refugees since 2001. All of a sudden we aren't vetting well enough and we need to ban them. Even though they haven't killed anyone.

30k+ deaths a year from gun violence. No extreme vetting.

Shouldn't we do something about that?

"Fru, refugees aren't citizens!"

Well, constitutional rights have been interpreted to extend to non citizens

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2017/01/30/does-the-constitution-protect-non-citizens-judges-say-yes/#7e58d0d55520

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/255281-yes-illegal-aliens-have-constitutional-rights

 
And, again, this action does not affect only refugees. It has affected a significant number of people who are not.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am not advocating a darn ban!!!

I am advocating increased vetting. How it is worded to get to that point, is where you all are taking issue. How much additional time do they feel is required to figure out what improvments they still need to make. It's not up to me, but just like going to get an ice cream cone, I look forward to the end result and based on us driving in that direction.

I have hope. Do ya get it, do ya, do ya?

 
We have now countless examples of the lives disrupted by this immigration order, many of them people who have already been vetted. If you haven't read their stories, it is not hard to find them and more.

I think it's only reasonable to ask in what way their vetting was inadequate, and what urgency has prompted all of this disruption to be necessary.

 
Step outside of the presidential EO please!

Put on a lens that shows the enormous constant task of keeping our country safe to the best of our abilities. Review all the events nation wide that are special interest (Super Bowl for example) that would be prime for our security let down.

Now, seeing faults or week links in our current system, what would you want to see happen?

Agents/officers/military personnel, don't dictate what or how certain task need to be addressed by our executive branch. It would be good if they made some modifications. Does this have a chance to cause some upfront pain. Yes, don't most things that show improvement? You don't wake up one morning all buff when you look in the mirror. There are some bumps. I think this will settle somewhere in the middle. Sorry, but that's it.

I can't relay it any other way for everyone who is not willing to look at this from a different perspective.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this boils down to "In order to keep Americans safe, we need to keep Certain Foreigners Out."

Where does that effort end? When there exist no targets? No events? No foreigners? It seems to me that we will always be able to make the argument that some harm must come to others so that we will be safer than we currently are.

A certain Franklin misquote truly does come to mind.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
zoogs said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this boils down to "In order to keep Americans safe, we need to keep Certain Foreigners Out."

Where does that effort end? When there exist no targets? No events? No foreigners? It seems to me that we will always be able to make the argument that some harm must come to others so that we will be safer than we currently are.

A certain Franklin misquote truly does come to mind.
Click to expand...

The enemy is not always from outside. The enemy can be a sympathizer of the outside. Certain controls need to be in place to allow every option of counter measures to be fully utilized. This includes vetting of non US citizens, their potential US associations, and much more.

Will it ever end?

Nope, probably not until we see our maker. Should we throw up our hands and say, we did all we can, we can all go home now!

Seriously, I am out on this, You don't know what you don't know, so I will leave it at that. Thanks for the chat all.

 
If it never ends, then we need to surveil our own citizens ruthlessly, and permit our government to define what "sympathizes with the outside" means -- and what safety measures are needed for such people/threats.

That's what I mean. At what point do we cease to be the land of the free, in the name of safety? I don't believe you are advocating for an unrestrained police state.
 
zoogs said:
If it never ends, then we need to surveil our own citizens ruthlessly, and permit our government to define what "sympathizes with the outside" means -- and what safety measures are needed for such people/threats.

That's what I mean. At what point do we cease to be the land of the free, in the name of safety? I don't believe you are advocating for an unrestrained police state.
Click to expand...
We stopped being the land of the free, milk and honey when we got neutered by countries who were only to happy to push out buttons and we responded with a firm scolding! Also, if you think you are living in the land of the free, you do not recognize the prices that were paid for those supposed freedoms.

No, I am not advocating for a police state.

 
Also, if you think you are living in the land of the free, you do not recognize the prices that were paid for those supposed freedoms.
Click to expand...
I'm really confused by what you're saying.

[SIZE=13.6px]- This is not the land of the free because we were neutered by other countries?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=13.6px]- This is not the land of the free because of the prices we paid for the freedoms that don't exist?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=13.6px]Are the liberties that come with 'land of the free' undesirable? Untenable? Should not be pursued? [/SIZE]

 
zoogs said:
Also, if you think you are living in the land of the free, you do not recognize the prices that were paid for those supposed freedoms. [/size]
Click to expand...
I'm really confused by what you're saying.[/size]

- This is not the land of the free because we were neutered by other countries?

- This is not the land of the free because of the prices we paid for the freedoms that don't exist?

Are the liberties that come with 'land of the free' undesirable? Untenable? Should not be pursued? [/size]
Click to expand...
My tired a** is not communication very well at this hour. I need to be done with commenting on this subject. While I appreciate the stanch stand you and others are making for all to be welcome with the current processes in place, I disagree that we are where we need to be to contniue to have the level of security that is or will be required as we move forward.

There is no process foul proof, but we are no where close to being a secure Nation, as we are today!

Thanks again, sorry for the last ramble. Just tired and have a long day ahead of me tomorrow.

See ya around the board Zoogs!

 
No worries. We've all been there. Cheers!
default_cheers.gif


 
We had no domestic terror attacks from foreign sources for eight years under Obama. None, despite what we are being told was a sub-standard vetting process.

Trump is in office less than a week... and suddenly we are unsafe and we HAVE TO ban Muslims (and only Muslims!) from these countries?

Kinda seems like we were safer under Obama. Right?

 
Takoda, what if there's an attack tomorrow commited by Muslim citizens and Trump decides to revoke all green cards for people from countries with a Muslim majority and move Muslim citizens to camps (Trump has already said there's a precedent for that).

I just feel like many people are failing to see the writing on the wall here. Hopefully I'm wrong here and this is where it ends, but it's already gone too far imo.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Also, why do the people who support this (or at the very least don't speak against it) and saying we need to improve our vetting process "just in case" the same people who tend to be anti-regulation?

Food born illnesses, contaminated water and air pollution 'cause a sh#t ton more death than immigrants.

 
Back
Top