Trump's immigration ban denied

[Draco-Onis]

He's now trolling you, so I'd control the real anger that's starting to show.

No not angry I curse when I am angry.

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

I forgot, I'm talking to a retard on here.

- - - Updated - - -



Not to mention this type of order has been issued by past POTUS' going back to Jimmy Carter. Everyone from Clinton to Bush to Obama has issued EO's on immigration. I'm not understanding the belly-aching.

Yeah, number 8 is the most absurd. Canada has one of the strictest refugee policies in the world. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I believe only refugee families are allowed in, and no single men.

[Skroe]

Next stop, the Supreme Court.

You gonna bet on Kennedy and /or Roberts allowing the ban?

I'll take that bet, rofl. Particularly Roberts. As he showed twice with Obamacare, he is first and foremost an institutionalist. He's worked (from his perspective) very hard to restore the reputation of the supreme court.

The Court will not be in Trump's corner.

[Breccia]

let me ask all of you that are against this temporary ban from terrorist nations a question

Good God, the bolding. Lemme fix that.

would it be wrong to halt travel from lets say a nation that is stricken with an epidemic until we are able to establish a method of detecting people that do come from that country are carriers of that dieses ? are we punishing those people from that country? are we wrongfully discriminating against?

Hmm, a leading question. Let's say the answer is "yes" even though the US is certainly capable of setting up quarantine zones with high-quality doctors and medicine on both sides of the border.

It is a flawed analogy anyhow.

1) People do not, due to sociological conditions, say "You know what? I'm going to catch smallpox."

2) Refugees and immigrants from war-stricken countries are, in many cases, fleeing the violence and other harsh conditions. They are saying "Fuck smallpox! Let me the hell out of here!"

3A) Diseases are contagious. Violence is typically anti-contagious, as the people who are violent typically kill the people who aren't.
3b) Or, people who do decide to fight back, typically don't flee to the US, then fight back. They typically stay and fight back against the people who were violent in the first place. I guess they could join the US military, but that's kind of not the issue here, is it?

4) People can be immunized against diseases, or treated, which using your flawed metaphor would be like a legal visa, green card, or vetted refugee. This ban ignores that, which makes alternative sense because Trump is anti-vaccine, but doesn't fit reality or your analogy.

Basically, you're comparing a disease -- something people typically don't want and catch by accident -- with terrorist activity -- which people who do them typically do want and do so on purpose. I appreciate the bold-faced effort (heh), but it simply doesn't work here.

And for the record, no, we have really good doctors and medical care here. If people were fleeing a smallpox outbreak, I'd like to hope the US would set up treatment centers for them. Not sure that'd happen, but I'd hope it did.

[cubby]

Uh, you might want to check that constitution as it clearly spells out the President has the power and authority to do. There is no clause that says unless it hurts the feelings of green haired, basement dwelling SJW's.

I know, I know.

Those darn pesky facts are so infuriating to anti-trumpers!

You might want to take your own advice. Have you heard of the Supreme Court? Do you know what the Supreme Court does?

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, number 8 is the most absurd. Canada has one of the strictest refugee policies in the world. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I believe only refugee families are allowed in, and no single men.

You are wrong. As usual. Not a shock.

[Breccia]

Not to mention this type of order has been issued by past POTUS' going back to Jimmy Carter. Everyone from Clinton to Bush to Obama has issued EO's on immigration. I'm not understanding the belly-aching.

Please show the times Carter, Clinton, Reagan, Bush, the other Bush, and Obama blocked legal US residents.

Please show the times Carter, Clinton, Reagan, Bush, the other Bush, and Obama blocked people from entering based on events that hadn't happened yet.

Please show the times Carter, Clinton, Reagan, Bush, the other Bush, and Obama brought the gates crashing down mid-flight, stranding people in airports.

Now, you might have a few of those. But I don't think you back this up with a blanket claim like this. I've posted the "Obama dun it" fallacy multiple times already, so I don't think you're going to get every president on your list.

Also, I think you do understand it, you just disagree with it. There's a difference.

[Endus]

Yeah, number 8 is the most absurd. Canada has one of the strictest refugee policies in the world. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I believe only refugee families are allowed in, and no single men.

Yeah. *You're wrong.

First, you're wrong because you're focusing solely on Syrian refugees; Canada has been a world leader in accepting refugees from around the world for decades. Prior to the Syrian crisis, we were a world leader in per-capita terms. While I agree that under Harper's conservative government, we failed to live up to that legacy, we're trying to correct that.

Second, you're wrong because there is no ban on "single men". There are two systems; public sponsorship, and private sponsorship. The public sponsorship program is prioritizing who it selects based on their risk; children, women, and particularly families are obvious choices. LGBT refugees are also on that list; a single gay male refugee would be prioritized. And it isn't that we're excluding single straight men; they're just not at as great a risk, so in our prioritization, they're lower on the list. If we continue the program long enough, we'll get to them. We'd do more, but our resources are limited; unlike EU countries, they're not right on our doorstep, clamoring to be let in, the public sponsorship program includes paying for them to come to Canada, over and above their support when they're here.

Third, the private sponsorship program doesn't have these restrictions. You can sponsor whoever you like, as long as they pass the vetting process to determine they're not a threat.

The strictness is in the vetting, not the selection, and in that selection, it's not about denial, it's about priority. If you go to the ER with a broken toe, they're going to treat the guy who comes in after you with fifteen stab wounds, first. Because your toe's not as serious. It doesn't mean they're refusing to treat you, it means they're prioritizing based on need.

[Breccia]

More Trump denying reality.

Trump Says His Order Didn't Cause Weekend Airport Chaos

Holding firm to his immigration order, President Donald Trump on Monday denied it was to blame for chaos at the nation's airports over the weekend, instead pointing to computer glitches, protesters and even the "tears of Senator Schumer."

...

Trump's order does not address homegrown extremists already in America, a primary concern of federal law enforcement officials. And the list of countries in Trump's order doesn't include Saudi Arabia, where most of the Sept. 11 hijackers were from.

Trump's take on the weekend turmoil: "Big problems at airports were caused by Delta computer outage, protesters and the tears of Senator Schumer."

A Delta systems outage Sunday night led to departure delays and cancellations of at least 150 flights. However, the chaos started Saturday as protesters packed some of the country's major airports to demonstrate against the executive order.

In the face of criticism, Trump says his order is not a "Muslim ban."

A number of U.S. diplomats prepared a memo criticizing it.

In a "dissent cable," being drafted for State Department leadership, the diplomats say the ban runs counter to American values and will fuel anti-American sentiment around the world. They say it won't produce a drop in terror attacks in the U.S., but instead "a drop in international good will toward Americans."

U.S. officials say several hundred diplomats have signed on.

The dissent cable originated in the State Department's Consular Affairs bureau, which handles visas and whose employees are most directly affected by Trump's order.

There appeared to be widespread confusion among authorities tasked with carrying out the order and how it would be applied to certain groups, such as U.S. legal permanent residents.

Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly issued a statement Sunday saying that, absent information indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare, citizens of the seven countries who hold permanent U.S. residency "green cards" will not be barred as officials had previously said. It remains unclear what kind of additional screening they will face.

Republican Ohio Sen. Rob Portman urged the new president to "slow down" and work with lawmakers on how best to tighten screening.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Monday, "I think there are some people who might not like the way it was done, but they were all consulted in the process."

A federal judge in New York has issued an emergency order temporarily barring the U.S. from deporting people from the seven nations. The order bars U.S. border agents from removing anyone who arrives in the U.S. with a valid visa from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. It also covers anyone with an approved refugee application.

The Department of Homeland Security said Sunday the court ruling would not affect overall implementation of the White House order.

Several Democrats in Congress said they would be introducing legislation to stop the ban.

Washington state's attorney general said Monday he would sue Trump over the executive order, making Washington the first state to announce a legal action against the administration. Bob Ferguson was one of 16 state attorneys general who released a statement Sunday calling Trump's immigration action "un-American and unlawful."

[Vyxn]

Good God, the bolding. Lemme fix that.



Hmm, a leading question. Let's say the answer is "yes" even though the US is certainly capable of setting up quarantine zones with high-quality doctors and medicine on both sides of the border.

It is a flawed analogy anyhow.

1) People do not, due to sociological conditions, say "You know what? I'm going to catch smallpox."

2) Refugees and immigrants from war-stricken countries are, in many cases, fleeing the violence and other harsh conditions. They are saying "Fuck smallpox! Let me the hell out of here!"

3A) Diseases are contagious. Violence is typically anti-contagious, as the people who are violent typically kill the people who aren't.
3b) Or, people who do decide to fight back, typically don't flee to the US, then fight back. They typically stay and fight back against the people who were violent in the first place. I guess they could join the US military, but that's kind of not the issue here, is it?

4) People can be immunized against diseases, or treated, which using your flawed metaphor would be like a legal visa, green card, or vetted refugee. This ban ignores that, which makes alternative sense because Trump is anti-vaccine, but doesn't fit reality or your analogy.

Basically, you're comparing a disease -- something people typically don't want and catch by accident -- with terrorist activity -- which people who do them typically do want and do so on purpose. I appreciate the bold-faced effort (heh), but it simply doesn't work here.

And for the record, no, we have really good doctors and medical care here. If people were fleeing a smallpox outbreak, I'd like to hope the US would set up treatment centers for them. Not sure that'd happen, but I'd hope it did.

radical extreme ideology that infect some isn't no different then a dieses and that radical extreme ideology can pass from one person to the next just like a dieses

that analogy has been used by many even by those on the left for example
Terrorism is the symptom, ideology the disease
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...OML/story.html

- - - Updated - - -

The strictness is in the vetting, not the selection, and in that selection, it's not about denial, it's about priority. If you go to the ER with a broken toe, they're going to treat the guy who comes in after you with fifteen stab wounds, first. Because your toe's not as serious. It doesn't mean they're refusing to treat you, it means they're prioritizing based on need.

"Strictness is in the vetting"
so what is so wrong then in putting a temporary halt on refuges from terror prone nations till we can a create and implement a stricter process of vetting?

[drakensoul]

so what is so wrong then in putting a temporary halt on refuges from terror prone nations till we can a create and implement a stricter process of vetting?

Since you are the one advocating a ban and 'stronger vetting,' you would be the one responsible for explaining what is wrong with the current vetting process. Can you point to any data that show that refugees have committed terrorist acts or are in any way more criminal than natives?

Can you point to any data that show that refugees from the seven banned countries are more likely to commit crimes?

Can you point to any data that suggest that banning these seven countries would have prevented any of the terrorist attacks which have already happened?

Can you point to any data that suggest that it's emergent that we ban immigration from these seven countries immediately? That you can't "work on vetting" while the current system (https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov...-united-states) continues to function as it has been?

If no, then the question isn't "why not put a halt on it;" but rather, why are you halting these seven countries based on nothing, no evidence, no data, nothing other than your own "TERRORIST!!!!!!!" feeling?

Xenophobia and bigotry is the symptom, small-mindedness and fear is the disease.

[Endus]

"Strictness is in the vetting"
so what is so wrong then in putting a temporary halt on refuges from terror prone nations till we can a create and implement a stricter process of vetting?

Because that isn't "vetting". It's a refusal to vet anyone and just blanket-banning people regardless of their circumstances. It's discriminatory and prejudiced, inherently.

[Vyxn]

Because that isn't "vetting". It's a refusal to vet anyone and just blanket-banning people regardless of their circumstances. It's discriminatory and prejudiced, inherently.

you first have to create a stricter vetting process to be able to do such vetting. you have to put the horse before the cart

is it discriminatory and prejudiced to temporary halt all travel from nations to enter yours that are stricken with an epidemic? is it wrong to wait till you have a process in place to screen those that want to enter to make sure the aren't stricken with the dieses?

[unfilteredJW]

you first have to create a stricter vetting process to be able to do such vetting. you have to put the horse before the cart

is it discriminatory and prejudiced to halt all travel from nations that are stricken with an epidemic is it wrong to wait till you have a process in place to screen those that leave to make sure the aren't stricken with the dieses?

Second time this bullshit false equivalency has been said in regards to this topic.

Pushed aside. Try again.

[drakensoul]

you first have to create a stricter vetting process to be able to do such vetting. you have to put the horse before the cart

is it discriminatory and prejudiced to temporary halt all travel from nations to enter yours that are stricken with an epidemic? is it wrong to wait till you have a process in place to screen those that leave to make sure the aren't stricken with the dieses?

Communicable diseases which have a high mortality based solely on contact do not compare with refugee immigration, which you have zero evidence showing has caused any deaths whatsoever.

Please provide any data showing that refugees, who have been coming into the country for years and are the most vetted and scrutinized immigrants in the country, have caused any terrorist acts or crimes.

Africa has been stricken with an AIDS epidemic, and we don't halt travel from Africa.

I don't know what a dieses is.

[Vyxn]

Communicable diseases which have a high mortality do not compare with refugee immigration, which you have zero evidence showing has caused any deaths whatsoever.

Africa has been stricken with an AIDS epidemic, and we don't halt travel from Africa.

I don't know what a dieses is.

Revealed: Two of the Jihadis sneaked into Europe via Greece by posing as refugees and being rescued from a sinking migrant boat - and survivors say one of the attackers was a WOMAN*

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz4XHsYuSDr
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[Endus]

you first have to create a stricter vetting process to be able to do such vetting. you have to put the horse before the cart

This in no way justifies the ban. It just means you should create that stricter vetting process (while ensuring it's nondiscriminatory). The two are entirely unrelated, other than the lack of proper vetting being the fearmongering that the administration is using to try and mislead people into accepting the ban.

is it discriminatory and prejudiced to temporary halt all travel from nations to enter yours that are stricken with an epidemic? is it wrong to wait till you have a process in place to screen those that want to enter to make sure the aren't stricken with the dieses?

What "epidemic"? If you mean terrorism, it's a relatively tiny problem, in the first place. It isn't the threat you make it out to be, and isn't as widespread among that population as you apparently think. If you mean Islam, well, that's prejudiced and wrongheaded, on its face.

Plus, the main reason that nations might be quarantined in the case of an outbreak is to prevent the disease spreading, contagiously. Terrorism just flat-out doesn't, making the analogy nonsensical.

[drakensoul]

Revealed: Two of the Jihadis sneaked into Europe via Greece by posing as refugees and being rescued from a sinking migrant boat - and survivors say one of the attackers was a WOMAN*

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz4XHsYuSDr
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

So the mortality rate is 2 in 63.5 million, or .000003%.

That's all you have to support your entire argument that refugees are terrorists and must be stopped?

Again, this is an absurd claim to make that restricting immigration from these seven countries is preventing large-scale criminal or terrorist attacks, based on zero evidence.

White Man Shoots and Kills Black Woman

There, now you can ban white men. Anyone can be a criminal, and statistically immigrants and refugees are no more likely, and in fact often less likely to be criminals than natives. Focusing on them, then, and saying banning them will make us safer is nothing but propaganda based on fear and bigotry.

This is not how reality functions.

[Endus]

Revealed: Two of the Jihadis sneaked into Europe via Greece by posing as refugees and being rescued from a sinking migrant boat - and survivors say one of the attackers was a WOMAN*

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz4XHsYuSDr
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Not sure what you think that proves.

A criminal lied to border agents to gain entry and commit a crime. That doesn't make any comparison to any kind of "epidemic", you're looking at individual actions. This is exactly the fearmongering I was talking about. These attacks are tragic, but they're statistically almost meaningless. Your chance of being targeted for a terrorist attack in the USA, for instance, is orders of magnitude less than your chance of being shot to death by a toddler. Specifically by someone between the ages of 1 and 5, we're not talking about teen criminals or something. Do we freak out and respond by trying to ban toddlers from entering the country? Of course not. Because that's ridiculous and insane. Even though, statistically, they pose a greater threat to Americans than terrorists do.

[Mormolyce]

I forgot, I'm talking to a retard on here.

No please, tell me more about how Iraq was stable. There's always room for more alt facts.

[Skroe]

The Acting Attorney General has ordered the DoJ not to defend the ban, believing it is unconstitutional.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politi...ice/index.html

Thus putting Trump and Sessons (when he gets confirmed) in an impossible situation. She successfully put the Trump administration in the position of defending a political agenda, rather than one of the law.

BLAM.