Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2017 5:37 PM
450 online now:
Asgara (AdminAsgara), dwise1, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 446 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Happy Birthday: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,967 Year: 6,573/21,208 Month: 2,334/2,634 Week: 522/572 Day: 8/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
52NextFF
Author Topic:   Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1 of 779 (797990)
01-30-2017 7:57 AM


Here's a discussion from Townhall of the legality of Trump's executive order banning entrance into the country to members of some nations: Yes, the Trump Executive Order on Immigration is Legal:

Even more ridiculous and blinkered is the suggestion that there may be something unconstitutional about refusing entry to refugees or discriminating among them on religious or other bases (a reaction that was shared at first by some Republicans, including Mike Pence, when Trumpís plan was announced in December 2015). There are plenty of moral and political arguments on these points, but foreigners have no right under our Constitution to demand entry to the United States or to challenge any reason we might have to refuse them entry, even blatant religious discrimination. Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congressís powers in this area are plenary, and the presidentís powers are as broad as the Congress chooses to give him. If liberals are baffled as to why even the invocation of the historically problematic ďAmerica FirstĒ slogan by Trump is popular with almost two-thirds of the American public, they should look no further than people arguing that foreigners should be treated by the law as if they were American citizens with all the rights and protections we give Americans.

Liberals are likewise on both unwise and unpopular ground in sneering at the idea that there might be an increased risk of radical Islamist terrorism resulting from large numbers of Muslims entering the country as refugees or asylees. There have been many such cases in Europe, ranging from terrorists (as in the Brussels attack) posing as refugees to the infiltration of radicals and the radicalization of new entrants. The 9/11 plotters, several of whom overstayed their visas in the U.S. after immigrating from the Middle East to Germany, are part of that picture as well. Here in the U.S., we have had a number of terror attacks carried out by foreign-born Muslims or their children. The Tsarnaev brothers who carried out the Boston Marathon bombing were children of asylees; the Times Square bomber was a Pakistani immigrant; the underwear bomber was from Nigeria; the San Bernardino shooter was the son of Pakistani immigrants; the Chattanooga shooter was from Kuwait; the Fort Hood shooter was the son of Palestinian immigrants. All of this takes place against the backdrop of a global movement of radical Islamist terrorism that kills tens of thousands of people a year in terrorist attacks and injures or kidnaps tens of thousands more.

There are plenty of reasons not to indict the entire innocent Muslim population, including those who come as refugees or asylees seeking to escape tyranny and radicalism, for the actions of a comparatively small percentage of radicals. But efforts to salami-slice the problem into something that looks like a minor or improbable outlier, or to compare this to past waves of immigrants, are an insult to the intelligence of the public.

...Also, the list of nations in the order was selected from the Obama White House. They†laid down the groundwork.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2017 8:30 AM Faith has responded
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-30-2017 11:53 AM Faith has responded
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2017 11:57 AM Faith has responded
 Message 66 by Modulous, posted 01-30-2017 7:54 PM Faith has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12438
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 2 of 779 (797996)
01-30-2017 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
01-30-2017 7:57 AM


Well that is a massive evasion.

First, there is no justification for the immediate halt to entry other than "foreigners don't have rights." I'd expect a bit more when people with valid documents are being turned back at U.S. airports. The more so since the White House failed to provide clear guidance. What's the rush ? Why not just suspend issuing visas, for instance ?

And really if the majority of Americans feel that it is acceptable to treat people badly just for coming from the wrong country then it is a great shame on America.

Second, I will note that the examples of terrorists given are not even linked to the countries affected by the ban. Given the lack of any serious analysis I can hardly say that it supports the idea that an immediate ban - or any ban at all - is necessary. You can hardly say that it is a major problem without numbers - especially when you are counting the risk that their children might become radicalised.

Finally simply saying that the list came from the Obama administration is only going to work on people who feel that the Obama administration could do no wrong. The more so since we do not know the purpose or context of this list. It certainly does not seem to reflect the risk of terrorists entering the country (why not Saudi Arabia ?).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 01-30-2017 7:57 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 01-30-2017 8:41 AM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 3 of 779 (797997)
01-30-2017 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by PaulK
01-30-2017 8:30 AM


It is no shame on any nation to protect its citizens from any possible threat whatever according to the judgment of its leadership; rather it is its righteous duty. In fact I find the 1965 law also discussed in the article to be a problem because it disallows discrimination on the basis of nationality. In my opinion any nation should be allowed to discriminate against the entry of members of any other nation for any reason whatever. That's a sovereign right that liberal "snowflakes" melt into silly tears over, having no appreciation whatever of actual risk and threat in this fallen world where there even exists a religion like Islam that commands its followers to commit murder in the name of their god, and whose members have no intention of assimilating to the culture they are entering.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2017 8:30 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2017 8:58 AM Faith has responded
 Message 5 by JonF, posted 01-30-2017 9:02 AM Faith has responded
 Message 60 by NoNukes, posted 01-30-2017 5:51 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12438
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 4 of 779 (798001)
01-30-2017 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Faith
01-30-2017 8:41 AM


If there is a real threat that justifies such drastic action I haven't seen any evidence of it. And if there were then why appeal to the idea that your government can do what it likes to foreigners ?. And if you thought about it, you might realise that the wrongs you do could come back to haunt you. Grievances are one of the roads to radicalisation, for one thing.

And let us be honest. There is no good link between nationality and terrorism - let alone with the list of nations banned, as even your OP showed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 01-30-2017 8:41 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 01-30-2017 9:15 AM PaulK has responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 5 of 779 (798002)
01-30-2017 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Faith
01-30-2017 8:41 AM


In fact I find the 1965 law also discussed in the article to be a problem because it disallows discrimination on the basis of nationality. In my opinion any nation should be allowed to discriminate against the entry of members of any other nation for any reason whatever.

You are entitled to your opinion. There are established procedures for changing laws you don't like.

But the law is the law, and the US Government is charged with enforcing it. Governmental actions that prima facie break the law are illegal.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 01-30-2017 8:41 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 01-30-2017 9:09 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 6 of 779 (798003)
01-30-2017 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by JonF
01-30-2017 9:02 AM


My objection to this law doesn't affect Trump's order anyway, as Townhall points out. I'm simply giving my opinion that a nation should be able to ban anybody they like for any reason whatever.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by JonF, posted 01-30-2017 9:02 AM JonF has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 7 of 779 (798004)
01-30-2017 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by PaulK
01-30-2017 8:58 AM


What a snowflaky opinion, that grievances might radicalize some Muslims. Oo oo oo let's all cower before the murdering ideology cuz they might get all mad and hurt us. Cowardice is not the way to deal with bullies. No, the historical fact is that a show of power has the opposite effect with Islamists, leading them to lie low until power accumulates on their side.

It is because the west has given into them that they have become the danger they have become over the last couple of decades both here and in Europe, not to mention all the nations they have been terrorizing for years.

And get a clue: none of their murdering rampages have anything to do with "grievances" -- except of course the grievance that we aren't Muslims. It is all about the ideology of Islam that rewards them for killing "infidels." This ridiculously naÔve culturebound idea about "grievances" is in fact one of the biggest reasons they have become the threat they have become.

I have no worries about being in the wrong about these things. It is a righteous act to prevent harm to my neighbor as I see a risk of that. Whether you see it or not has no effect on MY view of it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2017 8:58 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2017 9:28 AM Faith has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12438
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 8 of 779 (798006)
01-30-2017 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Faith
01-30-2017 9:15 AM


If you have to dismiss an obvious fact as "snowflakey" it just shows that you are plain flakey. If you are prepared to use the idea that the children of the people you are mistreating *might* become terrorists as part of the excuse for their mistreatment you might at least consider the effects of that mistreatment.

And simply demonising Islam is no answer. By doing that you are only helping the terrorists to recruit others. If you go around treating people as enemies for no good reason you can hardly be surprised if you turn some of them into enemies.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 01-30-2017 9:15 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 01-30-2017 9:32 AM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 9 of 779 (798007)
01-30-2017 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by PaulK
01-30-2017 9:28 AM


THEY ARE ALREADY ENEMIES by their ideology. You are taking the cowardly position.

By the way we've admitted many refugees as "children" who are in their twenties and as old as thirty. Get a clue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2017 9:28 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2017 9:57 AM Faith has responded
 Message 242 by Taq, posted 02-02-2017 4:41 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 10 of 779 (798008)
01-30-2017 9:36 AM


The Propaganda Blitz Against Righeousness
By the way is anybody noticing the media reports on the protests against Trump's order? All in favor of the protests, which are whipped up by anti-Americans and wacko liberals, protesting OUR laws which they have no right to do. It's all Trump's fault according to them. Latest Yahoo headline: "How Trump's Rushed Move Ignited Chaos Around the Globe." No, the chaos has been ignited by enemies of America working feverishly to destroy us, probably as usual financed by George Soros, infiltrated by mercenaries bought by him, and inflamed by the sort of cowardice PaulK is recommending. Media bias against America is running all these things and liberals are all in favor of it.

I hope Trump can hold out against this neverending attempt to destroy the best nation that ever existed on earth but it may be that the evil powers will succeed. Come soon Lord Jesus.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by vimesey, posted 01-30-2017 9:59 AM Faith has responded
 Message 17 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2017 11:04 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12438
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 11 of 779 (798009)
01-30-2017 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Faith
01-30-2017 9:32 AM


It is no more "cowardly" than refusing to admit people who have already been screened, and have arrived in the US with all the paperwork. If your attempt to protect against the assumed threat is counterproductive then it is hardly sensible - even before we consider the rights and wrongs.

The average Muslim is not a terrorist, nor likely to become one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 01-30-2017 9:32 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 01-30-2017 10:04 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
vimesey
Member
Posts: 785
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 12 of 779 (798010)
01-30-2017 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Faith
01-30-2017 9:36 AM


Re: The Propaganda Blitz Against Righeousness
Come soon Lord Jesus.

So that he can shun the awful suffering of those fleeing war and destruction, whilst keeping those in the privileged, rich Western world secure in their relative luxury and comfort ?

Must be a different fellow to the one I've heard about Faith.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 01-30-2017 9:36 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 01-30-2017 10:09 AM vimesey has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 13 of 779 (798011)
01-30-2017 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by PaulK
01-30-2017 9:57 AM


I could not care less if some of the order needs to be modified or is legal just as it is, but as a whole it is perfectly legal and should be enforced. The ones with the paperwork need to be vetted by the government too.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2017 9:57 AM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by DrJones*, posted 01-30-2017 10:22 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 14 of 779 (798012)
01-30-2017 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by vimesey
01-30-2017 9:59 AM


Re: The Propaganda Blitz Against Righeousness
There is a liberal false Jesus that is popular these days. Probably the one you've heard about. The true Jesus is not in favor of putting the citizens of a nation under threat by foreigners.

....EXCEPT of course if we are under God's judgment, because that sort of foreign threat is one of the punishments decreed -- check out Deuteronomy 10 (I think) and Leviticus 26.

And despite what seems to be God's blessing us by sending us the sane policies of Trump, it may well be that we are so far under His judgment already that without a more drastic change than even Trump promises we can't escape destruction. And if we can't certainly Europe can't. Hello Sharia Law. Enjoy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by vimesey, posted 01-30-2017 9:59 AM vimesey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by vimesey, posted 01-30-2017 10:35 AM Faith has responded

    
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1642
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004


Message 15 of 779 (798013)
01-30-2017 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
01-30-2017 10:04 AM


The ones with the paperwork need to be vetted by the government too.

They were vetted by the government, that's how they got their visa/green card. Did you think they just hopped on a plane to the US on a whim?

Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.


It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 01-30-2017 10:04 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
1
23456
...
52NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017