Inauguration Day LOL!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm hearing a lot about the wrong countries are on the list. Of the suggested right ones to be on the list, what do they share in common?


I am not the only one who is tired of the false premise that all of these bullshit social issues are the most important issues of our times. From gay wedding cakes, race being the blame as to why someone is shot while trying to take a service firearm from a cop, women losing the fucking minds because they're not provided free birth control pills when out of pocket cost for them is less than $20 a month, individuals with body dysmorphia claiming discrimination if they can't go into a bathroom with your minor daughter/granddaughter, the list goes on and on.....including the false idea that people who wish to immigrate to this country have a right to do so. We have domestic issues which need attention, primarily the economy, the American Dream. People are tired of the bullshit.

But back to point: In Europe, it has been proven time and again that many "refugees" from the middle east and northern africa are carrying fraudulent Syrian documents. They know with Syrian documents they're in like Flynn. There are a lot of jihadists in war torn Syria. Some of those undoubtedly are slipping through into Europe. For that reason alone, no Syrians should be allowed into this country. It is a no brainer. If and when ISIS in Syria and Iraq is defeated, what remains of them will fan out across the globe. Hell, they're already doing so. Whoever is dumb enough to accept "refugees" from that area is ignorant and/or suicidal.

We have a better vetting process than Europe? Do we, really? Tell that to the victims of the San Bernardino attack. Tashfeen Malik entered into this country from Pakistan. Within, what, a year?....she and her (native born) husband gunned down with automatic weapons Americans at a company meeting for no other reason than....?..yeah, the common factor.

If you want numbers, research polls and stats of the beliefs of people from the middle east and northern africa. There views on many things are not compatible with western society. I didn't fully read the article in the link, so maybe you can get back to me on what it says. A Sample, "regarding the percentage of Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan who support the death penalty for leaving Islam. The correct figures, based on the 2013 Pew Research Center report, are 88% of Muslims in Egypt and 62% of Muslims in Pakistan favor the death penalty for people who leave the Muslim religion.

Majorities of Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan support the death penalty for leaving Islam - The Washington Post
 
The latest mass shooting to happen in awhile was actually the opposite:

Quebec mosque shooting: Suspect called a 'lone wolf' - CNN.com

Not to mention, many, if not all, before that, were via Americans.

Psssst! Quebec is in Canada Eh?

Nothing of the sort here in the U.S. to date...Terrorist attacks are generall by terrorist from other countries.. mass shootings by Americans though horrific are not something immigration policies can help manage. Conversely, by tightening security measures and immigration policies at all entry points into the U.S., only a blind fool would argue it won't make it more difficult for foreign bad guys to pull off attacks on U.S. soil.

here's a wiki link to Islamist attacks over the years ...take a look at 2015 and 16 Peace, love and power to the people baby

alfred-e-neuman.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Conversely, by tightening security measures and immigration policies at all entry points into the U.S., only a blind fool would argue it won't make it more difficult for foreign bad guys to pull off attacks on U.S. soil.

Security measures are already tight. They are already successful. Trump is not tightening up squat. He has no idea how this shit works and it is obvious that neither did whomever wrote the executive order. He said "Muslim ban" to appeal to biases (and worse). Trump's refugee ban has nothing to do with any prior incidents of terrorism in this country - unless you think there is a religious tie - which you clearly implied there was:

TAE said:
I believe he is speaking of terrorist types with an affinity to Allah........it's not racism, it's not discrimination, it's get realism!

and then inexplicably denied a few posts later:

TAE said:
Twist the truth as you wish man... neither of us said Muslim Americans are more violent than Christian/jew/atheist/agnostic/buddhist/hindu immigrants

^^^There is no way to square these two statements.

Trump asked for a legal way to implement the Muslim ban. This current policy is what they came up with. Why you guys are defending it - you have yet to articulate.
 
Last edited:
We have a better vetting process than Europe? Do we, really? Tell that to the victims of the San Bernardino attack. Tashfeen Malik entered into this country from Pakistan. Within, what, a year?....she and her (native born) husband gunned down with automatic weapons Americans at a company meeting for no other reason than....?..yeah, the common factor.

If you want numbers, research polls and stats of the beliefs of people from the middle east and northern africa. There views on many things are not compatible with western society. I didn't fully read the article in the link, so maybe you can get back to me on what it says. A Sample, "regarding the percentage of Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan who support the death penalty for leaving Islam. The correct figures, based on the 2013 Pew Research Center report, are 88% of Muslims in Egypt and 62% of Muslims in Pakistan favor the death penalty for people who leave the Muslim religion.

Majorities of Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan support the death penalty for leaving Islam - The Washington Post

You keep mentioning Pakistan/San Bernadino. Pakistan and San Bernadino have absolutely nothing to do with the policy you are defending. Pakistan is not listed in Trump's executive order. Neither is Egypt.

This is like 2003 all over again - Republicans were saying that we must invade Iraq because a terrorist organization in Afghanistan employed terrorists from Saudi Arabia on 9/11. It doesn't make any more sense now than it did then.
 
Last edited:
For that reason alone, no Syrians should be allowed into this country.

Let's make this real for a second. The number of Middle Eastern immigrants involved in killings is astronomically low.

“Attacks by Muslims accounted for only one third of one percent of all murders in America last year.”

- Terrorism by Muslims makes up one-third of 1 percent of all murders in the US - Vox

Literally, there are more Americans named "Alan" that commit murder than Muslims here in America. The company Protection1 lists "Alan" as the most likely name for a murderer, with a total of 1.5 instances per 100,000 people. That's, roughly, 4,800 murderers named Alan.

We'd be better off taking "Alan"s down than immigrant Muslims. There is no sense of rationality in your stance. The US is an extremely large place with an extraordinarily large number of people living here. The word "minuscule" doesn't ever come close to describing the violence due to Muslims. It's nothing more than prejudice and fear of the unfamiliar - stereotyping in the worst way.
 
Security measures are already tight. They are already successful.

And you say this with a straight face? I'll have to say on this topic you and I are at an impasse.

Trump asked for a legal way to implement the Muslim ban. This current policy is what they came up with. Why you guys are defending it - you have yet to articulate.

To be clear, the immediate action , was a stop the presses...alto...we need to come up with a better plan because the current plan blows..what the final policy will be is being developed by Team Trump as the nay sayers chomp away at what is only a very temporary mode of operation.

As far as articulating any further than what I said below...I got nothin


As I said previously said:
Terrorist attacks are generally by terrorist from other countries.. mass shootings by Americans though horrific are not something immigration policies can help manage. Conversely, by tightening security measures and immigration policies at all entry points into the U.S., only a blind fool would argue it won't make it more difficult for foreign bad guys to pull off attacks on U.S. soil.
 
Whatever this guy is saying - it is not news to the people screening the refugees (which, again, the process is robust and successful - and you have provided zero data to refute this). For Syria, less than 1% of applicants make it through the process. 78% of them are women and children. The demographics for Iraqi refugees appear to be similar. Between 2008 and 2014 we accepted 91,000 Iraqi refugees. Precisely zero of them have killed any Americans in an act of terrorism.

Most Syrian refugees coming to U.S. are women, children

This guy also fails to mention all the Iraqis who risked their lives to support our troops - interpreters, etc. Abandoning them if they are in danger would be an immoral betrayal. That is part of what you are defending.
 
Abandoning them if they are in danger would be an immoral betrayal. That is part of what you are defending.

I am not defending anything of the sort. I do believe the new administration has implemented this 90 day hold / assessment period to improve on a system they believe puts our country at risk of letting bad guys in. It isn't permanent, it's a 90 / 120 day assessment period. It isn't at all clear what the new system will change, if anything. Until it is implemented and revealed what that new system will be, any speculation as to who gets in, who doesn't and who gets screwed is boogie man talk. When it is established and revealed to us we can discuss or debate the "fairness" of it...until then it is not "fair" to assume anything.

Action

For the next 90 days, nearly all travelers, except U.S. citizens, traveling on passports from Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Iran, Somalia, Libya, and Yemen will be temporarily suspended from entry to the United States. The 90 day period will allow for proper review and establishment of standards to prevent terrorist or criminal infiltration by foreign nationals.

Importantly, however, Lawful Permanent Residents of the United States traveling on a valid I-551 will be allowed to board U.S. bound aircraft and will be assessed for exceptions at arrival ports of entry, as appropriate. The entry of these individuals, subject to national security checks, is in the national interest. Therefore, we expect swift entry for these individuals.

In the first 30 days, DHS will perform a global country-by-country review of the information each country provides when their citizens apply for a U.S. visa or immigration benefit. Countries will then have 60 days to comply with any requests from the U.S. government to update or improve the quality of the information they provide.

DHS and the Department of State have the authority, on a case-by-case basis, to issue visas or allow the entry of nationals of these countries into the United States when it serves the national interest. These seven countries were designated by Congress and the Obama Administration as posing a significant enough security risk to warrant additional scrutiny in the visa waiver context.

The Refugee Admissions Program will be temporarily suspended for the next 120 days while DHS and interagency partners review screening procedures to ensure refugees admitted in the future do not pose a security risk to citizens of the United States.

The Executive Order does not prohibit entry of, or visa issuance to, travelers with diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas.

The Department of Homeland Security along with the Department of State, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation will develop uniform screening standards for all immigration programs government-wide.

Upon resumption of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, refugee admissions to the United States will not exceed 50,000 for fiscal year 2017.

The Secretary of Homeland Security will expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking system of all travelers into the United States.

Transparency

The Department of Homeland Security, in order to be more transparent with the American people, and to more effectively implement policies and practices that serve the national interest will make information available to the public every 180 days. In coordination with the Department of Justice, DHS will provide information regarding the number of foreign nationals charged with terrorism-related offense or gender-based violence against women while in the United States.
 
I am not defending anything of the sort.

Defending that would be dumb, right?

Iraqi interpreters are already being prevented from entering the USA:

Veterans fight for interpreters to be exempt from Trump refugee ban | Miami Herald

WASHINGTON
Military veterans were dumbfounded and furious when it became clear over the weekend that President Donald Trump’s executive order barring the admission into the United States of people from seven majority-Muslim countries keeps out interpreters who’d risked their lives helping U.S. forces in Iraq.

“They better make a damn exception, because we are here because of them,” said Andrew Biggio, a former Marine sergeant who was deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. “Our lives, our families, we have everything to thank for our interpreters. We owe them, we owe them, we owe them.”

...


Thousands of Iraqis who worked as interpreters and advisers to U.S. troops are barred from obtaining visas and entering the country now risk retaliation against them and their families for collaborating with the U.S. government. Veterans say the interpreters provided invaluable translation, help and intelligence and served on the front lines with U.S. troops.

“We asked them to risk their lives for us and they’re being threatened because they worked alongside us,” said Scott Cooper, a Marine veteran who served tours in Iraq, Afghanistan and Bosnia. He now leads Human Rights First’s Veterans for American Ideals project, which advocates for military interpreters and Syrian refugees.

“They didn’t think this one through, and it’s completely wrong,” he said. “We all want America to be safe, this is why we put on the uniform.”

Read more here: Veterans fight for interpreters to be exempt from Trump refugee ban | Miami Herald

Read more here: Veterans fight for interpreters to be exempt from Trump refugee ban | Miami Herald

Read more here: Veterans fight for interpreters to be exempt from Trump refugee ban | Miami Herald

Trump's executive order refugee ban was not vetted properly. Mattis was not consulted. Neither was Tillerman.

Trump and many of his supporters wanted a Muslim ban. This is what they came up with. It is NOT based on safety. It IS based on politics.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TAE
Earth ...they're all over the damn place! In fact, maybe you're one of them? :laughings:

And that's the paranoia on display. This guy played you on being scared of things that aren't happening. He took your prejudices and exaggerated them to get himself nominated. There are no Muslims running rampant in the streets causing chaos. We are not bombarded with terror. It's all in your mind bud.

There are infinite "bad" things more likely to occur.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top