Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Donald Trump should be commended for his Muslim Ban.


H10

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Cum Laude said:

There’s something else being left out of the discussion. The wealth of a society is a direct function of the trust social compact that exists. When you allow waves of immigration to enter from poor areas of the world where fraud and deceit are rampant, these characteristics end up being imported as well and over time begin to erode the amount of social cohesion that exists.

Yeah they forgot that little choice tidbit of information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Yeah they forgot that little choice tidbit of information.

During my time at CRA I was involved in agency wide working group tasked with identifying and deterring the latest fraud efforts against the agency. During the monthly meetings it was an accepted fact that the fraud rate among certain groups was massively higher than all others. Most of the organized and widely used fraud efforts came from the Toronto and Vancouver areas from particular ethnic communities.

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Argus said:

There is no ban on Muslims.

Trump (during the election, paraphrased): "I want to ban muslim travel".

Rudy Guliani (again paraphrased): "Trump asked me how I could do a Muslim ban legally".

Trump (post ban): "We'll let christians (i.e. non-muslims) in."

So you'll have to forgive people from labeling it a Muslim ban.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/trump-asked-for-a-muslim-ban-giuliani-says-and-ordered-a-commission-to-do-it-legally/?utm_term=.c61131629389

Re: Refugee process taking > 1 year and requiring multiple checks

Or they can get on a plane for Canada, flush their passports, claim refugee status, and be out on the street by end of day.

I believe this thread was discussing the U.S. and their current refugee system and current ban. If you want to argue that the Canadian system is too lax or that Europe has additional problems, there may be valid discussion there, but its irrelevant to what Trump has done.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

Trump (during the election, paraphrased): "I want to ban muslim travel".

Rudy Guliani (again paraphrased): "Trump asked me how I could do a Muslim ban legally".

What they might have said is largely irrelevant compared to what they did. Muslims from forty of the world's forty-seven Muslim states can and are entering the US every day without problem or issue. To say nothing of Muslims who are citizens of other nations like Canada, France and the UK.

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

Extreme vetting is like extreme hoarding - only opposite.  

Which still tells us noting about what such 'vetting' will involve (over and above what is already done).

And, as far as vetting from the UN, I wouldn't trust them either, they're not looking out for the host country, they have their own agendas. 

The U.S. is not relying on the U.N. for its refugee screening. They do their own checks in addition to what the U.N. does.

Do you really think U.N immigration workers are running around trying to undermine various countries? The fact is, they're often quite stringent. (For example, people living in refugee camps in Jordan are restricted from travellign to syria... if they do, they are not allowed back into the camp.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's something else to consider:

The U.S. health care system relies quite heavily on foreign-born health care providers (including doctors, nurses, etc.), including many from Muslim-majority countries. Trump's travel ban has had an adverse effect on them (and suggested modifications to visa rules will make things worse.) Doctors can't travel to the U.S. for their medical residency, doctors currently practicing in the U.S. can't travel to conferences outside the country to improve their skills, etc.

It is quite ironic that in trying to ban muslim travel from several countries (countries which, by the way, have never been the source of refugees engaged in Terror attacks on American soil), Trump may be making the U.S. less safe.

And what's doubly ironic... many of these foreign-born doctors work in rural areas, where much of Trump's voter base resided. So people voted for the Racist orangutan in order to make themselves safer/better off, and end up being the worse off for it.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-ban-medical-20170201-story.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, segnosaur said:

So people voted for the Racist orangutan in order to make themselves safer/better off, and end up being the worse off for it.

I'm sure there are lots of nice folks with red hair who are not thrilled by the left's constant ridicule of Trump's hair colour.

Just don't say "brown man" around here, get's you a suspension without context.

 

Edited by OftenWrong
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, segnosaur said:

Here's something else to consider:

....It is quite ironic that in trying to ban muslim travel from several countries (countries which, by the way, have never been the source of refugees engaged in Terror attacks on American soil), Trump may be making the U.S. less safe.

 

 

Logically then, the U.S. should have directed travel bans to those nations which have attempted terror attacks "on American soil".

So that would include Canada.   I will let President Trump know of this glaring omission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Argus said:

What they might have said is largely irrelevant compared to what they did. Muslims from forty of the world's forty-seven Muslim states can and are entering the US every day without problem or issue. To say nothing of Muslims who are citizens of other nations like Canada, France and the UK.

So you agree that Muslims from 7 country's are banned. I wonder why they forgot to include the ones that have actually done damage to US citizens, like maybe the ones flying the planes into the twin towers?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Logically then, the U.S. should have directed travel bans to those nations which have attempted terror attacks "on American soil".

So that would include Canada.   I will let President Trump know of this glaring omission.

I guess you are still laboring under the phony notion that the 9/11 folks came from Canada?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Omni said:

I guess you are still laboring under the phony notion that the 9/11 folks came from Canada?

What he forgets to mention is that those terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and UAE not Iran nor the other countries in the banned list.

Edited by kactus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like this handcuff business on children has been practised in the US for a while...

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/watch-ky-handcuffs-8-year-old-disability-article-1.2313908

Now before those hardheaded lot get a knee jerk to respond on your keyboards and blame muslim governments for their treatment of their citizens think for a second if you can.

What kind of message is this meant to send to the rest of the world when you hold the high moral ground!?

Homework starts here...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Omni said:

So you agree that Muslims from 7 country's are banned. I wonder why they forgot to include the ones that have actually done damage to US citizens, like maybe the ones flying the planes into the twin towers?

As far as I know everyone from those 7 countries is temporarily banned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

As far as I know everyone from those 7 countries is temporarily banned.

We'll see how temporary it will be but the point is, why aren't Saudis "temporarily banned" for instance? I guess money (especially oil money) Trumps even Donald's form of xenophobia.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Argus said:

As far as I know everyone from those 7 countries is temporarily banned.

From: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/01/28/trump-christian-refugees-priority/97175800/

President Trump said persecuted Christians would be treated as a priority as the White House implements major changes in the U.S. refugee program and immigration policy.

So while there may be an "everyone is banned" order in place, the ultimate goal is to favor christians over Muslims.

The problem is, while Christians may be persecuted in the middle east, Muslims can have it just as bad. (The split over shia and suni muslims is almost as bad as the split between catholic and protestant during the reformation, and groups like ISIS are just as eager to kill Shia muslims as they are Christians.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Omni said:

We'll see how temporary it will be but the point is, why aren't Saudis "temporarily banned" for instance? I guess money (especially oil money) Trumps even Donald's form of xenophobia.

Possibly. But Malaysia and Indonesia are not on the list either. The argument is, though, that the Americans rely on the Saudis to screen out terrorist wannabees, and that they have close communications with the Saudis in terms of who the extremists are, whereas the US has no such relationship with the government of Somalia (such as it is) and doesn't trust the one in Iran. As for Iraq, Iran and Yemen, half those countries aren't even controlled by the official governments, so how much do they know about these people?

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, segnosaur said:

From: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/01/28/trump-christian-refugees-priority/97175800/

President Trump said persecuted Christians would be treated as a priority as the White House implements major changes in the U.S. refugee program and immigration policy.

So while there may be an "everyone is banned" order in place, the ultimate goal is to favor christians over Muslims.

The problem is, while Christians may be persecuted in the middle east, Muslims can have it just as bad. (The split over shia and suni muslims is almost as bad as the split between catholic and protestant during the reformation, and groups like ISIS are just as eager to kill Shia muslims as they are Christians.)

Yes, but the Shias and Suunis have somewhere local to go. The Christians don't, and are persecuted through the Middle east. Plus, you probably don't need to worry about Christians wanting to blow people up in America.

I would prefer we take 2 Christian Iraqis or Christian Syrians rather than 1 Muslim, simply based on their greater danger, less options, likely lower level of religious extremism and higher likelihood of assimilation and adaptation here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, kactus said:

Seems like this handcuff business on children has been practised in the US for a while...

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/watch-ky-handcuffs-8-year-old-disability-article-1.2313908

Now before those hardheaded lot get a knee jerk to respond on your keyboards and blame muslim governments for their treatment of their citizens think for a second if you can.

What kind of message is this meant to send to the rest of the world when you hold the high moral ground!?

Homework starts here...

You have to remember that in a western country like the US controlling a child who is wildly out of control is not like it would be in those Muslim countries. Such a child would likely be beaten in those countries, by a teacher, parent or policeman, until they minded their manners. That can't happen here.

So who has the higher moral ground? The US policeman who handcuffs this wild child in a tantrum, or the Muslim teacher who puts her over a chair and uses a strap on her bottom until she stops acting out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Every time there is an attack in America, the loony fringe point fingers to Canada. How many times have they been out to lunch?

I share your concerns more than you probably realize. As it was once pointed out a while back, true fascism is neither right-wing nor left-wing. Fascism is what happens when the hard right and the hard left both become so polarized and ridiculous that a totalitarian radical centrist movement is able to come along and take the abandoned middle-ground for its own ends. And should this happen here, it won’t be the old-fashioned European goose-stepping, heel-clicking variety. Another feature of true fascism is that it is always a unique product of its particular time and place in history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Argus said:

You have to remember that in a western country like the US controlling a child who is wildly out of control is not like it would be in those Muslim countries. Such a child would likely be beaten in those countries, by a teacher, parent or policeman, until they minded their manners. That can't happen here.

So who has the higher moral ground? The US policeman who handcuffs this wild child in a tantrum, or the Muslim teacher who puts her over a chair and uses a strap on her bottom until she stops acting out?

You obviously didn't pay attention to my post and decided to go ahead with making comparisons despite telling you for once not to....Do not expect a response....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Argus said:

Possibly. But Malaysia and Indonesia are not on the list either. The argument is, though, that the Americans rely on the Saudis to screen out terrorist wannabees, and that they have close communications with the Saudis in terms of who the extremists are, whereas the US has no such relationship with the government of Somalia (such as it is) and doesn't trust the one in Iran. As for Iraq, Iran and Yemen, half those countries aren't even controlled by the official governments, so how much do they know about these people?

We've gone over this with Omni a number of times.  As my father would say..."Like a 747".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...