The Trump Presidency - how I stopped worrying and learned to love the Hair

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
21,146
Location
Michigan USA
By then they will find a new reason to extend it.
 

_HighVoltage_

Captain Volvo
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
9,964
Car(s)
1998 Volvo S70 T5M
We'll see. Hopefully they'll come up with a decent vetting procedure by then (not sure why anyone opposes this).

1. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was also temporary at first, but then it got extended again and again until it became law. Which brings me to something you sometimes like to say:
2. It's the law. The 1965 Immigration Act made it illegal to bar people from entry on the basis of their nationality, race, or religion. Just because you had a dozen terrorists from one region, doesn't mean you can ban millions other people from the same region. That's correlation.
3. Vetting. Maybe I missed a detail somewhere, but which of the recent terror attacks has been orchestrated by recent refugees? Weren't most of the U.S. born or had been living in the U.S. for decades?
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,601
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
1. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was also temporary at first, but then it got extended again and again until it became law. Which brings me to something you sometimes like to say:
2. It's the law. The 1965 Immigration Act made it illegal to bar people from entry on the basis of their nationality, race, or religion. Just because you had a dozen terrorists from one region, doesn't mean you can ban millions other people from the same region. That's correlation.
3. Vetting. Maybe I missed a detail somewhere, but which of the recent terror attacks has been orchestrated by recent refugees? Weren't most of the U.S. born or had been living in the U.S. for decades?

I still don't understand why you think that a country HAS to accept anyone and everyone who wants to come in. If US (or any other country) goes "we are no longer accepting any foreign nationals and anyone with a visa needs to GTFO whenever it expires" I would see nothing wrong with it, it's one of the fundamental rights of any government.
 

_HighVoltage_

Captain Volvo
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
9,964
Car(s)
1998 Volvo S70 T5M
I still don't understand why you think that a country HAS to accept anyone and everyone who wants to come in. If US (or any other country) goes "we are no longer accepting any foreign nationals and anyone with a visa needs to GTFO whenever it expires" I would see nothing wrong with it, it's one of the fundamental rights of any government.

You are right. You can certainly exclude people from entry, but your reasons can't be race/religion/nationality-based. So yes, hypothetically the U.S. can just close down its borders and stop immigration altogether.

It's not that a country has to accept anyone and everyone. For example, the U.S. has established a clear preference for foreign engineers over other types of foreign workers. That's legal. What's illegal is allowing the French engineer over the Syrian engineer with similar credentials, just on the basis of his or her nationality.
 
Last edited:

_HighVoltage_

Captain Volvo
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
9,964
Car(s)
1998 Volvo S70 T5M
Ah, so your entire argument relies on the idea that temporarily restricting potential terrorists is discrimination based on nationality?

Not only that, but also because it seems to be arbitrary. If you remember, most of the attackers in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, but for some reason that country is not on the list of banned travelers. The ban seems to ignore actual historic evidence of real terrorists, and instead targets potential ones based on irrational fears with little evidence (again I ask, was there a case of a former refugee from those 6 countries who turned terrorist?)
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,601
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
You are right. You can certainly exclude people from entry, but your reasons can't be race/religion/nationality-based. So yes, hypothetically the U.S. can just close down its borders and stop immigration altogether.

It's not that a country has to accept anyone and everyone. For example, the U.S. has established a clear preference for foreign engineers over other types of foreign workers. That's legal. What's illegal is allowing the French engineer over the Syrian engineer with similar credentials, just on the basis of his or her nationality.

But why? Again a country can decide who to allow in, even if it's based on ethnicity or shoe size doesn't really matter.

- - - Updated - - -

Not only that, but also because it seems to be arbitrary. If you remember, most of the attackers in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, but for some reason that country is not on the list of banned travelers. The ban seems to ignore actual historic evidence of real terrorists, and instead targets potential ones based on irrational fears with little evidence (again I ask, was there a case of a former refugee from those 6 countries who turned terrorist?)

This has been said before, the list of countries was compiled by previous administration.
 

_HighVoltage_

Captain Volvo
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
9,964
Car(s)
1998 Volvo S70 T5M
But why? Again a country can decide who to allow in, even if it's based on ethnicity or shoe size doesn't really matter.

Well, sure...hypothetically you can do that, but there is no historic precedent. It would require a total rewrite of U.S. immigration law, it will require cause a major diplomatic and political nightmare internationally, and it will require us to erase/stop boasting about parts of our history - nation of immigrants, city upon a hill, etc.

It would be a major reversal of both policy and ideology. I'm not sure anyone really wants to go there.

I understand where the impulse to bar certain populations comes from, but if it were actually implemented, it will have major implications. This Supreme Court hearing in the fall will be a landmark decision, as it will address questions about borders, citizenship, and immigration that have been boiling since the mid-1990s.

This has been said before, the list of countries was compiled by previous administration.

And the previous administration was in the wrong too. No one is defending them.
 

TC

aka TomCat
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,436
Not only that, but also because it seems to be arbitrary. If you remember, most of the attackers in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, but for some reason that country is not on the list of banned travelers. The ban seems to ignore actual historic evidence of real terrorists, and instead targets potential ones based on irrational fears with little evidence (again I ask, was there a case of a former refugee from those 6 countries who turned terrorist?)
I know the stereotype of Americans being oblivious to the world outside of our borders is strong, but that is no reason for us to ignore what the rest of the world has and is going through. The details and tactics used by terrorists elsewhere are a concern to us, even if they haven't been used here. Yet. We shouldn't turn a blind eye to these things just because they happened outside of our borders. It's hard to take seriously any arguments that rely on ignoring the rest of the world and focus solely on what has occurred here so far.

What was that quote, about wise men learning from the mistakes of others...
 

_HighVoltage_

Captain Volvo
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
9,964
Car(s)
1998 Volvo S70 T5M
But your point was that it was arbitrary on the part of this administration which countries to "ban". That's the point I'm contesting.

Just because one follows stupid advice doesn't absolve them from criticism or excuse their action.

I know the stereotype of Americans being oblivious to the world outside of our borders is strong, but that is no reason for us to ignore what the rest of the world has and is going through. The details and tactics used by terrorists elsewhere are a concern to us, even if they haven't been used here. Yet. We shouldn't turn a blind eye to these things just because they happened outside of our borders. It's hard to take seriously any arguments that rely on ignoring the rest of the world and focus solely on what has occurred here so far.

What was that quote, about wise men learning from the mistakes of others...

I agree.

We can, and we should, act against terrorism. But banning entire nationalities is not the way to do it. Throwing the baby with the bath water.
 
Last edited:

TC

aka TomCat
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,436
I agree.

We can, and we should, act against terrorism. But banning entire nationalities is not the way to do it. Throwing the baby with the bath water.
The problem is that the priority of the government is to protect the rights of the people. Not to sacrifice the lives of the people for the benefit of people from other nations. No government should ever put the lives of it's own citizens in danger to benefit others. At that point they are breaking their oaths in an egregious manner.

We have the science. We have the data. We know who is more likely to pose a serious risk and who does not. If our governments cannot act on that data and have to ignore it and treat every potential new immigrant equally, regardless of potential risks, than that is an argument for isolationism more than anything else.
 

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
21,146
Location
Michigan USA
It seems that almost every time there is a terrorist attack, the actor(s) were known about well ahead of time and nothing was done. So what science and data are you talking about that will magically keep other individuals from taking that next step?
 

TC

aka TomCat
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,436
It seems that almost every time there is a terrorist attack, the actor(s) were known about well ahead of time and nothing was done. So what science and data are you talking about that will magically keep other individuals from taking that next step?
We're talking about immigration policy, not specific individuals. Immigration is a good thing for a society, but lately there has been increased risks involved. Very serious, very real risks. So it becomes a risk verses reward situation. But there is no rational reason why we have to treat every potential immigrant exactly the same. We can look at who are committing these evil acts and figure out what they all have in common, in order to weed them out and allow immigration to continue and reap the rewards. But if we act on those observations we begin venturing into the realms of racial/xenophobic discrimination. So what do we do? Sacrifice the lives of fellow citizens and maintain our reputation of religious freedom? Or should our governments live up to their sworn oaths and become more isolationist?
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,601
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
Just because one follows stupid advice doesn't absolve them from criticism or excuse their action.
That's certainly a fair point, however and I'm not saying you are doing this, this list is typically used to "prove" that current administration is somehow xenophobic, in that context the fact that they didn't come up with the list is a pretty valid point. Having said that, would you prefer that all middle eastern nations (well aside from Israel I suppose) were on the list?
 

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,396
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
There won't be any further review because by the time October rolls around this TEMPORARY ban will expire. The whole idea is to temporarily stop people from coming here while the administration figures out a better screening process.

The original ban was supposed to start in late January and last for 90/120 days to give the administration time to figure out a better screening process, right?
It's been about 150 days since then, so they must have figured out a better screening process by now, right?



Nobody knew that screening people could be so complicated.
 

mpicco

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,413
Location
Portugal
Car(s)
R19
How about we "ban" the "immigration" of US servicemen to middle eastern countries? I think you'd fix many problems with that.
 
Top