Immigration Ban

Takoda, he's asked if you are for or against this ban, or in other words, if you support it or approve of it or not.

You still haven't answered that. All you've said is that you haven't said that you are for it. Nobody is putting words in your mouth - we're trying to get them out of your mouth
default_laugh.png


 
🙃

I am not in favor of a ban!

I hope this EO allows additional vetting measures to be implemented. (Short comings)

I do not advocate walking 3 miles in a raging blizzard to the store to get groceries, but since we are going, I would like to see us get some ice cream!
default_smile.png


 
Last edited by a moderator:
I do not advocate walking 3 miles in a raging blizzard to the store to get groceries, but since we are going, I would like to see us get some ice cream!
default_smile.png
Another alternative is to express opposition to the guy leading us into the raging blizzard. Or at least to side with those who do.

Otherwise, does it not become difficult to claim that you oppose the EO?

 
I think commando has finally made me realize why many in here didn't like my opinion of reviewing the vetting procedures. The problem is I have been arguing for something reasonable but that isn't anywhere close to what Trump is doing.

My position has been, sure, review the vetting procedures, make sure they're up to snuff and make sure they're being consistently implemented. Period. That's it. That's what I felt was reasonable. But Trumper Tantrum is not limiting it to anything so reasonable. He's implementing bans and proposing ridiculous extreme vetting. I think my problem here has been that people are mistaking what I support as support for what Trump is doing. That couldn't be further from the truth.

 
Let me get in there!

...on a less erotic note, I found the passage quite interesting.

To preserve its independence, and give security against foreign aggression and encroachment, is the highest duty of every nation, and to attain these ends nearly all other considerations are to be subordinated. It matters not in what form such aggression and encroachment come, whether from the foreign nation acting in its national character, or from vast hordes of its people crowding in upon us. The government, possessing the powers which are to be exercised for protection and security, is clothed with authority to determine the occasion on which the powers shall be called forth, and its determinations, so far as the subjects affected are concerned, are necessarily conclusive upon all its departments and officers. If, therefore, the government of the United States, through its legislative department, considers the presence of foreigners of a different race in this country, who will not assimilate with us, to be dangerous to its peace and security, their exclusion is not to be stayed because at the time there are no actual hostilities with the nation of which the foreigners are subjects.
It's amazing to me how current these sentiments feel.

 
I think commando has finally made me realize why many in here didn't like my opinion of reviewing the vetting procedures. The problem is I have been arguing for something reasonable but that isn't anywhere close to what Trump is doing.

My position has been, sure, review the vetting procedures, make sure they're up to snuff and make sure they're being consistently implemented. Period. That's it. That's what I felt was reasonable. But Trumper Tantrum is not limiting it to anything so reasonable. He's implementing bans and proposing ridiculous extreme vetting. I think my problem here has been that people are mistaking what I support as support for what Trump is doing. That couldn't be further from the truth.
wth did i say?

 
I think commando has finally made me realize why many in here didn't like my opinion of reviewing the vetting procedures. The problem is I have been arguing for something reasonable but that isn't anywhere close to what Trump is doing.

My position has been, sure, review the vetting procedures, make sure they're up to snuff and make sure they're being consistently implemented. Period. That's it. That's what I felt was reasonable. But Trumper Tantrum is not limiting it to anything so reasonable. He's implementing bans and proposing ridiculous extreme vetting. I think my problem here has been that people are mistaking what I support as support for what Trump is doing. That couldn't be further from the truth.
wth did i say?
Oh it was nothing direct. It just occured to me when I was responding to you in teach's status. I realized that our position was probably very much the same yet the discussion seemed like we were opposed.

 
State Dept says about 60,000 visas revoked due to travel ban

It appears an attorney for the government revealed that the figure was over 100,000. The State Department challenged this with 60,000.

After 19 months of interviews, background checks and medical examinations, the Gabr family was ready to resettle in New Jersey. But President Trump's executive order barring Syrian refugees from the U.S. indefinitely has put the family's future in question. (Heba Farouk Mahfouz / The Washington Post)
"light vetting".

For people such as the brothers, Tareq and Ammar Aqel Mohammed Aziz, who tried to enter the country over the weekend with valid visas and were sent back, the government appears to be attempting a case-by-case reprieve. They and other plaintiffs in lawsuits around the country are being offered new visas and the opportunity to come to the United States in exchange for dropping their suits.
First we'll bar you from the country, send you right back on an international flight after detaining you fresh off landing from an international flight...then we'll do you the favor of granting you individual reprieve from a legally dubious EO in exchange for the benefit of you dropping your legal challenges to the order.

Great way to do business.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top