The immigration thread: American Melting Pot or Get off my Lawn

[PeterMP]

33 minutes ago, s0crates said:

 

Who said anything about believing him? To paraphrase the conversation:

 

Tailgate: We love Muslims. Trump is evil because he hates Muslims.

 

Me: I love Muslims too, but where was all this love for them while we were bombing the **** out of them?

 

You: Those bombs weren't targeting Muslims, they were targeting terrorists and enemies of the US. Important distinction.

 

Me: I'm sure Trump would make the same distinction.

 

You: Absolutely not.

 

Me: Quote from Trump making the same distinction.

 

You: s0crates believes Trump's lies!

 

Me: :confused

 

Because he also called for the prioritization for Christian immigrant from these same countries at the same time.  On the Christian Broadcasting Network.

 

While claiming (despite no evidence) that under Obama Christians were biased against.  Plus his previous comments when talking about banning Muslims.

 

You have to be able to look at the bigger picture.

 

(And, I think a lot of our bombing in the Middle East have probably been bad and not because I love Muslims because from a long term national security stand point, I don't think they make a lot of sense.)

Edited January 30, 2017 by PeterMP

[tshile]

I keep seeing the nationalities of the 9/11 hijackers brought up.

 

Makes me wonder if any of these people are aware that they tried to use hijackers from other places first. They were rejected, because of policies set to provide a higher level of scrutiny of people from certain areas (like yemen, iran, somolia, libya, etc) before 9/11 even happened. After failing to get the required documentation/permission to enter the US they eventually moved on to try people from Saudi Arabia (but only people who had not visited these other places) and only then were their trial runs successful.

 

I believe one guy even used different names to travel to Yemen but was still found out and stopped entry. I might have that detail murky though, been a while since I read the report.

 

I also wonder if these people are unaware that Saudi Arabia has a known problem with extremists in their country; their government and ours is and has been aware of it. They are the Wahhabists.

 

Do these people know these things and are intentionally being obtuse in the discussion, or do they just generally not know? Does the difference matter? Why is this never brought up? Why do we not demand better from the media in that regard?

 

It's public information. It's in public reports from the government.

 

*shrug*

[Destino]

Just now, PeterMP said:

If you start defining attacks on civilian populations (e.g. market places) in places like Iraq as terrorism, then yes clearly.

I imagine that most rational people see the sort of attack you described as terrorism.  I assume (and hope) you meant the sort of terrorism relevant to this discussion, if so you are correct.  I meant something along the lines of immigrants from those specific countries being involved in terrorism in other places. 

 

 

[Burgold]

10 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I'd be careful making this argument. One of Trump's henchmen already turned this around on CNN and said - yes, that's why this is just the start.

 

That just rings as ominous to me. "This is just the start" is something a movie villain declares while cackling. More to the point--

 

Why the heck would you start with the countries that haven't attacked us!

 

I mean what's the logic. Let's try the "safe" countries first and if that works we can go ahead and try to prevent terrorism from the countries that are actually threatening us or that we have actionable intelligence concerning their plans against us.

[skinsmarydu]

Trump on TV just now on MSNBC saying Chuck Schumer had "fake tears"... that he knows Chuck and doesn't see him as a crier. 

Honest to God, I cannot believe this ****.  I just can't. 

[Destino]

So trump chose the seven countries based on Obama administration's vias wavier restrictions that identified the same ones.  While I have had no trouble finding that information online, each of the two dozen or so articles I read this morning stop there.  Can someone educate me on why the Obama administration chose those same seven countries?  I'm not justifying what Trump is doing, I simply want to understand why these seven nations in particular stand out. 

 

 

[steve09ru]

1 hour ago, Burgold said:

... Your attempt to justify falls flat if for no other reason than Morocco is not one of the countries included in the EO Muslim Ban.

 

1 hour ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Was that an attempt to defend this **** show? I don't want to (and shouldn't have to) add any unnecessary wear & tear to my carpal joints explaining why that is a terrible point but if you really think you were being clever, I guess I'll do it. 

 

My guess is that it was related to the careless post from someone earlier who posted from a parody account that stated it was white supremacists who did this.

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

[tshile]

7 minutes ago, Burgold said:

That just rings as ominous to me. "This is just the start" is something a movie villain declares while cackling. More to the point--

 

Why the heck would you start with the countries that haven't attacked us!

 

I mean what's the logic. Let's try the "safe" countries first and if that works we can go ahead and try to prevent terrorism from the countries that are actually threatening us or that we have actionable intelligence concerning their plans against us.

 

"that haven't attacked us" is a terrible measuring stick. the goal is to prevent terrorism, not retroactively punish countries for it (though we like to do that too.)

 

they started with the countries that the Obama admin put on a list of countries that either have a Jihadist element that meats some standard of being dangerous within the country, or have a government that is known to/or believed to support said Jihadist groups/motives/etc.

 

I imagine at least part of the decision was the ability to say - These are countries your guy identified.

 

The more I read about this the more it's looking like the saving grace is that Trump and his administration were not smart enough to get everything checked and passed through the channels that are responsible for making sure such a think can hold up in court; so it's likely to not hold up in court. It'll be a temporary problem until it goes through court. However, the power to do such a thing apparently resides with the president, has precedence, and can still be done if done correctly.

 

Another interesting aspect is the 90 day 'ban' (the word ban is being used but there's a lot of debate about whether it's being used appropriately or not) and 180 day stoppage of refugees. The theory I think fits best is that it's an attempt to make things 'temporary' while also realizing they can simply issue a new EO ever 90 days effectively making something technically temporary actually permanent. By doing that not only might they get it to pass the legality issue, but they'll make it take a long time before someone can actually challenge it on those grounds because you're going to need them to actually issue another EO for another 90 days, otherwise you're just making up accusations. How many EO's do you need? 2? 3? if it's 3 we're now talking about 3/4 of a year before you can even challenge it appropriately. etc etc.

 

Once you get past the outrage and start actually reading the analysis of what is in the EO, what it might or might not mean, and what motives may or may not be driving it, it gets really interesting... also confusing, for someone who's not real knowledgeable on law and legal process/procedures/etc.

 

[Destino]

2 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

"A lot of bad "dudes" out there!" - The President. 

 

... heaven help us. 

[tshile]

4 minutes ago, Destino said:

So trump chose the seven countries based on Obama administration's vias wavier restrictions that identified the same ones.  While I have had no trouble finding that information online, each of the two dozen or so articles I read this morning stop there.  Can someone educate me on why the Obama administration chose those same seven countries?  I'm not justifying what Trump is doing, I simply want to understand why these seven nations in particular stand out. 

 

 

 

Everything I've read says the countries either have some sort of significant Jihadist issue within their country, or the government is known to support JIhadists.

 

Jihadist is the word that keeps being used/brought up.

 

The weird thing is that Iran is on the list. It's unclear if maybe it was part of the "we're being hard on Iran" thing and maybe taking them off the list was an oversight once the Iran deal went through, and oversight the Trump administration is taking advantage of. Or if they were left there on purpose.

 

Almost everyone I've read write something on this, trying to actually analyze it instead of getting caught in the hysterics, has said given the Iran deal it's really weird they're on this list and that in honest evaluations they are not like the rest of the countries on the list (outside of their hatred for Israel which always complicates things)

 

[Burgold]

1 minute ago, Destino said:

 

... heaven help us. 

but no, you sent us Congress

Good God, sir

Was that fair

 

Oh wait... you weren't quoting lines from 1776

[Riggo-toni]

Can anyone provide any proof that Christian minorities have been greater victims of persecution by ISIL than Yazidis? Anyone? Yes I know there has been sporadic slaughter of Christian communities; I believe several were literally crucified near Palmyra, but for the most part they seem to be extorted for tribute under the guise of djhizya (sp?).  By contrast, Yazidi communities have been slaughtered wholesale wherever they have fallen to ISIL, and our own inaction has forced them to rely on forces loyal to the PKK. Of course, Trump and his supporters probably have no clue what a Yazidi is, so I guess we can't expect a rational evaluation.

[Burgold]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Everything I've read says the countries either have some sort of significant Jihadist issue within their country, or the government is known to support JIhadists.

 

I think you are working too hard to give them the benefit of the doubt. Reason being, Trump's people did not do this in coordination with our intelligence communities. He didn't even inform them he wanted to do this until after he wrote and signed the EO. This wasn't thought out, interesting, or carefully planned. This was what it appears to be.

Edited January 30, 2017 by Burgold

[visionary]

5 minutes ago, Destino said:

So trump chose the seven countries based on Obama administration's vias wavier restrictions that identified the same ones. 

 

can someone provide a link to this.  I keep seeing some people say this.

[@DCGoldPants]

Executive President Bannon has Trump rolling over and doing tricks for him already. Impressive. 

[PF Chang]

[Burgold]

[tshile]

1 minute ago, Burgold said:

I think you are working too hard to give them the benefit of the doubt. Reason being, Trump's people did not do this in coordination with our intelligence communities. He didn't even inform them he wanted to do this until after he wrote and signed the EO. This wasn't thought out, interesting, or carefully planned. This was what it appears to be.

 

Am I?

 

Or am I just posting what i've read from lawyers and critical commentators from the left and the right that have gotten past the hysterics?

 

You all keep falling for the same god damn trap with this guy every single time. You never look past the hysterics.

 

Look at the language in the EO. Look at precedence. Look at what is actually happening.

 

Or don't. But for the love of god please stop assigning my motives of being to support/defend trump. It's tiring and lazy.

 

[Destino]

2 minutes ago, visionary said:

can someone provide a link to this.  I keep seeing some people say this.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-administration-chose-the-7-countries/

 

Quote

The seven Muslim-majority countries targeted in President Trump's executive order on immigration were initially identified as "countries of concern" under the Obama administration.

...

 

Restrictions from Obama years broadened to a ban

 

In December 2015, President Obama signed into law a measure placing limited restrictions on certain travelers who had visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria on or after March 1, 2011. Two months later, the Obama administration added Libya, Somalia, and Yemen to the list, in what it called an effort to address "the growing threat from foreign terrorist fighters."

 

The restrictions specifically limited what is known as visa-waiver travel by those who had visited one of the seven countries within the specified time period. People who previously could have entered the United States without a visa were instead required to apply for one if they had traveled to one of the seven countries.

 

 

[Burgold]

The precedence cited is bull or at least stretched. (You haven't been supporting Trump on this. I know that, but your last couple of posts seem to indicate that you are wrestling with a way to rationalize it)

 

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=.a4df8b8aedca

[visionary]

3 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said:

Can anyone provide any proof that Christian minorities have been greater victims of persecution by ISIL than Yazidis? Anyone? Yes I know there has been sporadic slaughter of Christian communities; I believe several were literally crucified near Palmyra, but for the most part they seem to be extorted for tribute under the guise of djhizya (sp?).  By contrast, Yazidi communities have been slaughtered wholesale wherever they have fallen to ISIL, and our own inaction has forced them to rely on forces loyal to the PKK. Of course, Trump and his supporters probably have no clue what a Yazidi is, so I guess we can't expect a rational evaluation.

So far no.  Christians have been than in less trouble than Muslims they see as false Muslims or groups/tribes that stood up to them.  Then again they haven't had as much opportunity in regards to Christians and have massacred some of them too.

[Llevron]

13 minutes ago, Destino said:

"A lot of bad "dudes" out there!" - The President. 

 

... heaven help us. 

 

"I think a Good relationship with Putin would be a good thing" -- or some **** like that -- Same President 

[NoCalMike]

It seems like the "Trump's policy is the same as Obama's policy" stretch is similar to when Dems (in large part) authorized Bush to use force if he felt it was needed, and then got blamed for being in favor of the war as if it was the same thing to actually order the invasion itself.  I know the two aren't 100% exactly the same but it is a similar way to justify.

[Destino]

6 minutes ago, visionary said:

So far no.  Christians have been than in less trouble than Muslims they see as false Muslims or groups/tribes that stood up to them.  Then again they haven't had as much opportunity in regards to Christians and have massacred some of them too.

I haven't seen anything saying that Christians have been in less trouble.  Do you have a link? 

 

 

2 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

It seems like the "Trump's policy is the same as Obama's policy" stretch is similar to when Dems (in large part) authorized Bush to use force if he felt it was needed, and then got blamed for being in favor of the war as if it was the same thing to actually order the invasion itself.  I know the two aren't 100% exactly the same but it is a similar way to justify.

The only similarity, as far as I can see, is that the Obama's administration identified the same countries.  I still don't know why exactly those nations were selected.  Trump's all out temporary ban is a completely different animal than anything Obama did.