Supreme Court allows full enforcement of Trump travel ban

[Edge-]

Again Edge, failed states can't provide the necessary information to investigate whether or not a visa applicant is a ISIS member, or just another refugee, that's the problem I have.

Again, if that was the measure then why is the list so short? One would imagine it would grow quite considerably if what you say was true.

Not to mention that the US relies on more than just the respective countries to provide information when vetting refugee applicants. Why do you think more than a dozen agencies take multiple years to approve refugee status?

Your argument is fiction.

Personally, I think we need to be a bit more harsh in how we admit refugees and other visa applicants from parts of the world where the culture is vastly different from our own, but that's just me.

Except that refugees have pretty consistently proven to be completely harmless, last I remember looking at the statistics. They're a bogeyman for scared xenophobes, nothing more.

[Zan15]

Again Edge, failed states can't provide the necessary information to investigate whether or not a visa applicant is a ISIS member, or just another refugee, that's the problem I have.

Personally, I think we need to be a bit more harsh in how we admit refugees and other visa applicants from parts of the world where the culture is vastly different from our own, but that's just me.

- - - Updated - - -



Skin color has nothing to do with it.

Ok i put my money on non Muslims? i put my money on Christians? i put my money on Catholics?
not sure whom we are trying to keep safe from with this ban? how do you keep safe from a problem that is this small relative to the other causes of death in this country?

[Theinquisition]

Again, if that was the measure then why is the list so short? One would imagine it would grow quite considerably if what you say was true.

Not to mention that the US relies on more than just the respective countries to provide information when vetting refugee applicants. Why do you think more than a dozen agencies take multiple years to approve refugee status?

Your argument is fiction.



Except that refugees have pretty consistently proven to be completely harmless, last I remember looking at the statistics. They're a bogeyman for scared xenophobes, nothing more.

It's not fiction, it's just not fitting with your narrative.

1. I agree the list should be longer, that doesn't mean that the ones on the list don't deserve to be there.

2. The primary resource for the state dept to determine whether or not a applicant is worthy of migration is law enforcement records. Obviously we don't need anyone who has murdered someone or committed other crimes. If a failed state doesn't have criminal records, or fragmentary records, how can we verify they aren't a criminal, and that's just the tip of the iceberg, that's not even going into past affiliations and political associations.

3. I still believe that applicants should have values that are compatible with our culture. Respecting womens rights, LGBQT rights, not throwing atheists off buildings, etc etc.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok i put my money on non Muslims? i put my money on Christians? i put my money on Catholics?
not sure whom we are trying to keep safe from with this ban? how do you keep safe from a problem that is this small relative to the other causes of death in this country?

So because we have other problems means we should be okay with this problem? Pretty ridiculous argument.

We don't need refugees, they need us, we are under no obligation to help anyone else, our governments responsibility is to preserve the safety of citizens. If that means we ban entry of migrants from certain parts of the world, so be it.

[Edge-]

3. I still believe that applicants should have values that are compatible with our culture. Respecting womens rights, LGBQT rights, not throwing atheists off buildings, etc etc.

It's funny, because we'd have to deport plenty of Americans if this was the case. This is why I continue to tell you that your arguments are little more than fiction, because they have little basis in actual reality.

[Theinquisition]

It's funny, because we'd have to deport plenty of Americans if this was the case. This is why I continue to tell you that your arguments are little more than fiction, because they have little basis in actual reality.

I'm sure that's true, but they are *our* problem to take care of, why import people who *aren't* our problem.

You still haven't posted something of substance that proves my arguments are "fiction" or have no basis in reality.

[Thekri]

It's not fiction, it's just not fitting with your narrative.

1. I agree the list should be longer, that doesn't mean that the ones on the list don't deserve to be there.

2. The primary resource for the state dept to determine whether or not a applicant is worthy of migration is law enforcement records. Obviously we don't need anyone who has murdered someone or committed other crimes. If a failed state doesn't have criminal records, or fragmentary records, how can we verify they aren't a criminal, and that's just the tip of the iceberg, that's not even going into past affiliations and political associations.

3. I still believe that applicants should have values that are compatible with our culture. Respecting womens rights, LGBQT rights, not throwing atheists off buildings, etc etc.

I get your argument, it is fairly clearly stated. I disagree though.

We can't allow fear of foreigners to change who we are at the core, a nation of immigrants. Individuals from any country should be able to gain entry to the United States if they pass our vetting process. All of the concerns you mentioned are already part of the vetting process. Originally the point of this ban was supposed to be to allow 90 days for the Trump administration to review those vetting procedures that could endure and handle the task. That was 10 months ago, the administration has had three times that much time, and they haven't changed anything.

I agree with your core argument that we need to be careful with who we let in, but that isn't what this ban is about. It is about creating islamophobia and reinforcing the aura of fear and hatred this president feeds on. Rewatch some of the RNC tapes, every speech was about fear, violence and "enemies". This president thrives there, when people are scared they don't worry about the morals that normally apply. America has to be desperate to back Trump, so he wants to keep them that way.

Say no to fearmongering, we are better then that. We don't have to be scared of Muslim immigrants.

[Zan15]

It's not fiction, it's just not fitting with your narrative.

1. I agree the list should be longer, that doesn't mean that the ones on the list don't deserve to be there.

2. The primary resource for the state dept to determine whether or not a applicant is worthy of migration is law enforcement records. Obviously we don't need anyone who has murdered someone or committed other crimes. If a failed state doesn't have criminal records, or fragmentary records, how can we verify they aren't a criminal, and that's just the tip of the iceberg, that's not even going into past affiliations and political associations.

3. I still believe that applicants should have values that are compatible with our culture. Respecting womens rights, LGBQT rights, not throwing atheists off buildings, etc etc.

- - - Updated - - -



So because we have other problems means we should be okay with this problem? Pretty ridiculous argument.

We don't need refugees, they need us, we are under no obligation to help anyone else, our governments responsibility is to preserve the safety of citizens. If that means we ban entry of migrants from certain parts of the world, so be it.

Yes because believe it or not realistically we cannot handle 100% of the problems this country has, so you have to pick the most bang for the buck. and that is no where near the best bang for the buck. not even in the top 1000.


one can argue there a lot of things "we don't need......."


if we wanted to go after everything, we would be arresting people that jaywalk, i mean to preserve the safety of the citizens of this country!!!

[Theinquisition]

I get your argument, it is fairly clearly stated. I disagree though.

We can't allow fear of foreigners to change who we are at the core, a nation of immigrants. Individuals from any country should be able to gain entry to the United States if they pass our vetting process. All of the concerns you mentioned are already part of the vetting process. Originally the point of this ban was supposed to be to allow 90 days for the Trump administration to review those vetting procedures that could endure and handle the task. That was 10 months ago, the administration has had three times that much time, and they haven't changed anything.

I agree with your core argument that we need to be careful with who we let in, but that isn't what this ban is about. It is about creating islamophobia and reinforcing the aura of fear and hatred this president feeds on. Rewatch some of the RNC tapes, every speech was about fear, violence and "enemies". This president thrives there, when people are scared they don't worry about the morals that normally apply. America has to be desperate to back Trump, so he wants to keep them that way.

Say no to fearmongering, we are better then that. We don't have to be scared of Muslim immigrants.

What part of our Vetting process covers people who literally have *no* records? We have to know the background of people coming into the U.S., we as citizens have a right to deny entry to anyone who can't be verified.

Now as far as the Trump stuff goes, I don't necessarily disagree. He hasn't done anything to fix the problem, and he has said some pretty stupid stuff regarding the ban.

With that being said, his comments and lack of action don't detract from the problem and the legitimacy of the existing ban, as long as it's based on limiting migration from nations where we can't obtain sufficient information about applicants. I personally think the list should be longer and include ANY nation with lack of law enforcement data.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes because believe it or not realistically we cannot handle 100% of the problems this country has, so you have to pick the most bang for the buck. and that is no where near the best bang for the buck. not even in the top 1000.


one can argue there a lot of things "we don't need......."


if we wanted to go after everything, we would be arresting people that jaywalk, i mean to preserve the safety of the citizens of this country!!!

Sigh....

1. just because this issue isn't on the top of the list doesn't mean it shouldn't be addressed.

2. strawman.

[Zan15]

It's not fiction, it's just not fitting with your narrative.



3. I still believe that applicants should have values that are compatible with our culture. Respecting womens rights, LGBQT rights, not throwing atheists off buildings, etc etc.

.

if this was the case then you can basically write off any country that has a majority of christian or catholic population. i mean it says word for word in the bible that gays should be put to death and women's rights....lol non exsistant.

[Edge-]

What part of our Vetting process covers people who literally have *no* records?

Guess what happens when they can't verify background information for refugees who have "*no* records"?

They get denied.

I know it's hard to believe, but they don't just blindly accept every applicant, even those that make it through the grueling, multi-year long process.

Your arguments continue to be half-thought out strawmen.

[Zan15]

What part of our Vetting process covers people who literally have *no* records? We have to know the background of people coming into the U.S., we as citizens have a right to deny entry to anyone who can't be verified.

Now as far as the Trump stuff goes, I don't necessarily disagree. He hasn't done anything to fix the problem, and he has said some pretty stupid stuff regarding the ban.

With that being said, his comments and lack of action don't detract from the problem and the legitimacy of the existing ban, as long as it's based on limiting migration from nations where we can't obtain sufficient information about applicants. I personally think the list should be longer and include ANY nation with lack of law enforcement data.

- - - Updated - - -



Sigh....

1. just because this issue isn't on the top of the list doesn't mean it shouldn't be addressed.

2. strawman.

Wait do you mean,
because we have other problems means we should be okay with this problem (jaywalking)? Pretty ridiculous argument.

yes i chose a ridiculous example, but it could easily be replaced with homeless vets, hungry kids, CHIP funding, etc etc all those things that help keep our citizens safe and healthy.



Just because the issue is on the list, doesn't mean it should be a priority over other things that should be addressed on the list.


more people died this week from gun related crimes then terrorist from those countries in the last 50 years. the time and money spent, which is finite, should be spent where it can make a difference

[Theinquisition]

if this was the case then you can basically write off any country that has a majority of christian or catholic population. i mean it says word for word in the bible that gays should be put to death and women's rights....lol non exsistant.

Well, scripture and reality are two different things.

I mean...in 2017, show me nations where groups of Christians are throwing gays off buildings, stoning women who show too much ankle, throw acid in the face of women who refuse to marry men 30 years their senior, engage in FGM, mass raping..rape victims and honor killings, and I'll agree that they need to be put on the same list.

- - - Updated - - -

Wait do you mean,
because we have other problems means we should be okay with this problem (jaywalking)? Pretty ridiculous argument.

yes i chose a ridiculous example, but it could easily be replaced with homeless vets, hungry kids, CHIP funding, etc etc all those things that help keep our citizens safe and healthy.



Just because the issue is on the list, doesn't mean it should be a priority over other things that should be addressed on the list.


more people died this week from gun related crimes then terrorist from those countries in the last 50 years. the time and money spent, which is finite, should be spent where it can make a difference

This is becoming circular and a waste of my time.

just because we can't fix every issue, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to.

For example, as a veteran, I've heard other veterans state "we shouldn't allow any refugees to get state funding as long as there's even one homeless veteran"

Now, I can understand the argument, although it could also be said (and be accurate) that we can work on both issues, just because one isn't fixed doesn't mean we can't work on the other.

- - - Updated - - -

Guess what happens when they can't verify background information for refugees who have "*no* records"?

They get denied.

I know it's hard to believe, but they don't just blindly accept every applicant, even those that make it through the grueling, multi-year long process.

Your arguments continue to be half-thought out strawmen.

We can save time and money by denying access to applicants from countries where we already know that we can't get data from.

I'm not sure why exactly people think that we have some sort of moral obligation to accept any refugees, especially any that may possibly be a threat.

[Thekri]

Well, scripture and reality are two different things.

I mean...in 2017, show me nations where groups of Christians are throwing gays off buildings, stoning women who show too much ankle, throw acid in the face of women who refuse to marry men 30 years their senior, engage in FGM, mass raping..rape victims and honor killings, and I'll agree that they need to be put on the same list.

Central African Republic, Uganda, Ghana, Cote d'Ivorie, The Philipines...

[primalmatter]

Terror wasn't necessarily his goal, but it was still the outcome.

Again, I'm not saying "white people are dangerous and should be treated as criminals!" because that's stupid. I'm pointing out that this bogeyman fearmongering over brown Muslims from other countries has no basis in fact or reality. Because it doesn't, and it's usually little more than thinly veiled racism often based off of ignorance. I mean, you have small towns petrified of ISIS when in reality the bigger threat to small towns isn't ISIS and Muslim terrorists, but crazy white dudes with guns. Should they be terrified of white dudes with guns? No, that's silly as well, and I'm not arguing that in any way. But it's similarly silly to be terrified of Muslim refugees that go through years of vetting by over a dozen different US agencies, do you really think that's the fastest way for terrorists to get into the US?

I don't think anyone has a problem with there skin color but rather their religion that is sending the middle east back to the stone age with its ass backwards beliefs...

[Theinquisition]

Central African Republic, Uganda, Ghana, Cote d'Ivorie, The Philipines...

Okay, sounds like a plan, gonna be a lot of upset Juicy girls though.

[Xeones]

I don't think anyone has a problem with there skin color but rather their religion that is sending the middle east back to the stone age with its ass backwards beliefs...

Despite wanting to respond pretty sure I'd get modded for forbidden topics.

[primalmatter]

Despite wanting to respond pretty sure I'd get modded for forbidden topics.

At some point you just go for broke. A mods talking about race so maybe just maybe its ok to this time maybe?

Perhaps?

[Xeones]

At some point you just go for broke. A mods talking about race so maybe just maybe its ok to this time maybe?

Perhaps?

That desperate to get me to tear you apart on religious hate?

[primalmatter]

That desperate to get me to tear you apart on religious hate?

Why not?

No one grows if their beliefs are never tested and debated in public.

Without that ignorance grows like a weed in the dark.

[Kokolums]

Thank goodness it will finally stop all the bombings and such that have occurred while it's been held up.

Wait...

Democrats argue all the time that it is valid to observe the state of health care in Europe to set policy in America. This is the republicans using Europe as an argument for a travel ban. There are many bombings in Europe so that gives reason for a ban.