- Location
- Retired in Minneapolis
I'm way more concerned about the very real threat to The United States and the world by the current administration than any potential threat from outside our borders
Fu*%face Von Clownstick
- Thread starter Nish
- Start date
TC
Participating member
I take it from that response Tom you've no constructive answers or even helpful observations to any of the questions in my last post?
.
NorCalBrock
Branched out member
- Location
- Chico
First, read up on our constitution- the supreme document and law of the land over riding any current ideology - left or right. It's a little different than Europe. I don't claim to be an expert on your isssues but you seem to be very devoid of understanding on ours
Second, you aren't reading our posts - we clearly understand and know the history of extremism on both sides.
Trumps ban was just deemed unconstitutional and will remain tied up in courts
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
TC
Participating member
.
Quick correction Levi, real Anarchists do not carry flags (a trapping of statehood if ever there was one). The red over black flag these moronic cretins carried at the inauguration and Berkeley represents anarcho communism which is leftist. These idiots seek to overthrow the capitalist system and replace it with the mythical and unrealistic 'communist utopia'
Here is an example of just how pathetic these so called 'anarchists' are. They are priveleged upper middle class weaklings who can't even do violent protest or civil disobedience well. As they find out when they meet this ordinary man on his way to work.
.
.
NorCalBrock
Branched out member
- Location
- Chico
The handful of self proclaimed anarchists I've know also called themselves gutter punks - they were let down time and time again by their family and foster care institutions. They were homeless and had a range of left and right anarchist slants on their ideology. Their means was dumpster diving, barter, and trimming weed
The one Marxo-anarchist I knew that was upper middle class changed his politics once he was hired by Apple and started making real money - lol
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The one Marxo-anarchist I knew that was upper middle class changed his politics once he was hired by Apple and started making real money - lol
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
TC
Participating member
Norcal, Brocky and Tom
None of you addressed any of these questions - seems you have no answers?..........
Do you accept that America (like many other countries in the world today) has security problems? Do you recognise that despite the twitter/Facebook charts on social media showing lawnmowers to be more of a threat to American life than terrorism, there are legitimate security concerns that reasonable Americans might hold?
Do you recognise that Islamic terrorism is not a figment of a fevered imagination, but a real thing that exists and which causes a risk to human life in America and many other countries? This isn’t to say that other forms of terrorism don’t exist – they obviously do.
If you do recognise the above fact then would you concede that large scale immigration from Islamic countries into the US might bring a larger number of potential challenges than, say, large scale immigration from New Zealand or Iceland?
Would you recognise that Iran is one of the world’s leading state-sponsors of terror, and that, for example, an Iranian-born American citizen in 2011 was caught planning to carry out a terror attack in Washington. Would you recognise that aggravating though a temporary halt on all Iranian nationals visiting the US might be, and many good people though it will undoubtedly stop, there is a reason that some countries cause a greater security concern than others? Might citizens of a country whose leadership regularly chants ‘Death to America’ present a larger number of questions for border security than, say, citizens of Denmark whose government rarely says the same? What would your vetting policy be to distinguish between different Iranians seeking to enter the US?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Iran_assassination_plot
Does the whole world have the right to live in America? This is a variant of the same question we Europeans should have been asking for years. If you do not think that the whole world has the right to live in the USA then who should be allowed to live there and who should not? Who might be given priority?
If you believe in giving some people asylum, as I do, who should be given priority? Should asylum be forever? Or should there be a time-limit (such as up until such a time as your country of origin is deemed safe)? How do you deal with people who have been given asylum, whose reason for asylum is over (i.e. their country has returned to peace) but whose children have entered the school system (for instance)?
Is it wrong that the Trump administration says it wishes to favour Christian refugees over Muslim refugees? Many Christians refuse to accept that the plight of Christians – even when they are the specific target of persecution – should be given priority over anyone else. This is a noble example of the general Christian ethos but is it wise or moral when you consider the limited numbers that can come in and if you accept that the entire persecuted world cannot arrive in America?
How do you identify the type of Muslims who America should indeed welcome? And how do you distinguish them from the sort of Muslims who the country could well do without? In other words, what would your vetting procedures be? What is your policy?
http://www.danielpipes.org/17198/smoking-out-islamists-via-extreme-vetting
.
None of you addressed any of these questions - seems you have no answers?..........
Do you accept that America (like many other countries in the world today) has security problems? Do you recognise that despite the twitter/Facebook charts on social media showing lawnmowers to be more of a threat to American life than terrorism, there are legitimate security concerns that reasonable Americans might hold?
Do you recognise that Islamic terrorism is not a figment of a fevered imagination, but a real thing that exists and which causes a risk to human life in America and many other countries? This isn’t to say that other forms of terrorism don’t exist – they obviously do.
If you do recognise the above fact then would you concede that large scale immigration from Islamic countries into the US might bring a larger number of potential challenges than, say, large scale immigration from New Zealand or Iceland?
Would you recognise that Iran is one of the world’s leading state-sponsors of terror, and that, for example, an Iranian-born American citizen in 2011 was caught planning to carry out a terror attack in Washington. Would you recognise that aggravating though a temporary halt on all Iranian nationals visiting the US might be, and many good people though it will undoubtedly stop, there is a reason that some countries cause a greater security concern than others? Might citizens of a country whose leadership regularly chants ‘Death to America’ present a larger number of questions for border security than, say, citizens of Denmark whose government rarely says the same? What would your vetting policy be to distinguish between different Iranians seeking to enter the US?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Iran_assassination_plot
Does the whole world have the right to live in America? This is a variant of the same question we Europeans should have been asking for years. If you do not think that the whole world has the right to live in the USA then who should be allowed to live there and who should not? Who might be given priority?
If you believe in giving some people asylum, as I do, who should be given priority? Should asylum be forever? Or should there be a time-limit (such as up until such a time as your country of origin is deemed safe)? How do you deal with people who have been given asylum, whose reason for asylum is over (i.e. their country has returned to peace) but whose children have entered the school system (for instance)?
Is it wrong that the Trump administration says it wishes to favour Christian refugees over Muslim refugees? Many Christians refuse to accept that the plight of Christians – even when they are the specific target of persecution – should be given priority over anyone else. This is a noble example of the general Christian ethos but is it wise or moral when you consider the limited numbers that can come in and if you accept that the entire persecuted world cannot arrive in America?
How do you identify the type of Muslims who America should indeed welcome? And how do you distinguish them from the sort of Muslims who the country could well do without? In other words, what would your vetting procedures be? What is your policy?
http://www.danielpipes.org/17198/smoking-out-islamists-via-extreme-vetting
.
- Location
- Retired in Minneapolis
Don't look to me for answers.
To paraphrase Montgomery Christopher Jorgensen "Scotty" Scott:
I'm an arborist not a profit!
The actions a few knuckleheads sure doesn't compare to the power of the peaceful participants. We could discuss the numbers but I've seen enough photos and videos that I can do the math and see the percentages
I grew up during the Vietnam and civil rights era. I know that protests and resistance are powerful
We are in the most troubling times that I've experienced
TC
Participating member
NorCal,
Federal immigration law includes Section 1182(f) , which states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate”
Section 1182(f) authorizes the president to issue temporary bans on the entry of classes of aliens for national-security purposes. This is precisely what Trump has done. In fact, in doing so, he expressly cites Section 1182(f), and his executive order tracks the language of the statute (finding the entry of aliens from these countries at this time “would be detrimental to the interests of the United State
.
TC
Participating member
That's all fine Tom but it has nothing to do with those questions regarding security and Trump's travel ban.
.
NorCalBrock
Branched out member
- Location
- Chico
I knew you'd cite that - but the problem was that it was applied to legal visa holders, green card holders, and people on US soil.
The court is one of the three powers - it has no check unless there is a constitutional amendment by 2/3 of congress and signed by the president
Also, the only oath the president takes is to uphold the constitution
So, until the law is rewritten, it is unconstitutional because it breaks the first ammendment rights of "persons" on US soil or those who have already been admitted.
If, it was simply a temporary ban on people from those countries who haven't been on US, it would pass the test
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
NorCalBrock
Branched out member
- Location
- Chico
Your statements are pure dicto simpliciter.
Using those arguments, let's pose them other ways:
If there is tainted water, then we must stop drinking.
If there is poisoned food, then we must stop eating.
If there is polluted air, then we must stop breathing.
We have laws on the books and reasonable vetting that has been working fairly well - if the right wants to strengthen it, do it in a well-planned and legal way
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Using those arguments, let's pose them other ways:
If there is tainted water, then we must stop drinking.
If there is poisoned food, then we must stop eating.
If there is polluted air, then we must stop breathing.
We have laws on the books and reasonable vetting that has been working fairly well - if the right wants to strengthen it, do it in a well-planned and legal way
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
TC
Participating member
What is it you don't understand exactly?
Trump issued an order halting indefinitely the admission of Syrian refugees, putting the general refugee programme on hold for 120 days, and suspending for 90 days all visas to nationals of Iran, Sudan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia and Yemen, which are designated as “countries of concern”.
He hasn't committed a crime against humanity.
The idea that he has is ridiculous at every level. First, the measure is not a Muslim ban. Access to the US by the vast majority of the world’s Muslims will remain unchanged. The order doesn’t target people for their religion or nationality. It is aimed solely at countering the terrorist threat to America. The temporary seven-states ban allows for more rigorous vetting of individuals from those countries who are seeking entry to the US.
The threat from these states is deadly serious. Last November a radicalised Ohio State University student, Abdul Razak Ali Artan, ploughed a car into a campus crowd and stabbed people with a butcher’s knife. He was a Somali refugee who came to the US in 2014.
Last June the CIA director John Brennan told a Congressional hearing that refugee flows were a route for terrorist infiltration. Last December, the chief of the defence staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart Peach, warned that Islamic State jihadists were “moving in migrant flows, hiding in plain sight”.
Trump is merely heeding urgent, vital and informed advice. Moreover, the hypocrisy and historical amnesia among those baying for his head are quite extraordinary. The seven-state list was actually drawn up by the Obama administration to suspend the visa-waiver for travellers from those countries for the same reason: to keep America safe.
In 2011, Mr Obama all but stopped admitting Iraqi refugees for six months while vetting was drastically overhauled. This followed the discovery by the FBI of evidence that several dozen Iraqi terrorists had infiltrated the US via the refugee programme. Yet no one attacked Mr Obama as a disgusting anti-Muslim bigot.
Other Democratic presidents have also banned migrants from the US. In 1980, during the Iranian hostage crisis, Jimmy Carter banned all Iranians from entering the US except for proven humanitarian reasons or where the American national interest required it.
Do you just hate Trump?
.
Last edited:
NorCalBrock
Branched out member
- Location
- Chico
You aren't reading what I'm saying...he applied it to everyone who was already admitted legally - that is why it was halted by the courts.
What Obama did was intensify screening in a more nuanced way and many exceptions were provided.
That is exactly what trump had to immediately start doing after they found out even diplomats were banned.
Tell me what attacks on US soil since 9/11 this executive order would have prevented?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
TC
Participating member
I'll happily answer your question if you address these questions I asked a few posts back, I've numbered them to help you out.
1. Do you accept that America (like many other countries in the world today) has security problems? Do you recognise that despite the twitter/Facebook charts on social media showing lawnmowers to be more of a threat to American life than terrorism, there are legitimate security concerns that reasonable Americans might hold?
2 Do you recognise that Islamic terrorism is not a figment of a fevered imagination, but a real thing that exists and which causes a risk to human life in America and many other countries? This isn’t to say that other forms of terrorism don’t exist – they obviously do.
3, If you do recognise the above fact then would you concede that large scale immigration from Islamic countries into the US might bring a larger number of potential challenges than, say, large scale immigration from New Zealand or Iceland?
4. Would you recognise that Iran is one of the world’s leading state-sponsors of terror, and that, for example, an Iranian-born American citizen in 2011 was caught planning to carry out a terror attack in Washington. Would you recognise that aggravating though a temporary halt on all Iranian nationals visiting the US might be, and many good people though it will undoubtedly stop, there is a reason that some countries cause a greater security concern than others? Might citizens of a country whose leadership regularly chants ‘Death to America’ present a larger number of questions for border security than, say, citizens of Denmark whose government rarely says the same? What would your vetting policy be to distinguish between different Iranians seeking to enter the US?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Iran_assassination_plot
5. Does the whole world have the right to live in America? This is a variant of the same question we Europeans should have been asking for years. If you do not think that the whole world has the right to live in the USA then who should be allowed to live there and who should not? Who might be given priority?
6. If you believe in giving some people asylum, as I do, who should be given priority? Should asylum be forever? Or should there be a time-limit (such as up until such a time as your country of origin is deemed safe)? How do you deal with people who have been given asylum, whose reason for asylum is over (i.e. their country has returned to peace) but whose children have entered the school system (for instance)?
7. Is it wrong that the Trump administration says it wishes to favour Christian refugees over Muslim refugees? Many Christians refuse to accept that the plight of Christians – even when they are the specific target of persecution – should be given priority over anyone else. This is a noble example of the general Christian ethos but is it wise or moral when you consider the limited numbers that can come in and if you accept that the entire persecuted world cannot arrive in America?
8. How do you identify the type of Muslims who America should indeed welcome? And how do you distinguish them from the sort of Muslims who the country could well do without? In other words, what would your vetting procedures be? What is your policy?
.
TC
Participating member
NorCalBrock
Branched out member
- Location
- Chico
Asylum seeking and a refugee are two legally different things in this country. I'll discuss refugees.
1-2: Same question - Yes there is a real thing such as Islamic Extremism in the world and it does pose a threat as does any extreme ideology with a penchant toward violence- I've stated this in previous posts. And we have laws, security, and vetting in place - you've even given examples where bad people have been caught.
3. We do not have large scale immigration from these countries when compared to other countries and Europe - and 70% are women and children. We have two Oceans dividing us, there is a 1.5 to 2 yeAr vetting process, and we spend more on our budget on FBI, CIA, DHS, etc than all other countries combined. Further, I believe it is partially our moral responsibility to assist countries where we've poisoned their wells.
4. Iran? I'm fine with limits on #s like we've always had as long as it is lawful and constitutional...Trump's was not because it was imposed on citizens (green card holders) and visa holders already in the country - many are working in tech, paying tuition at universities, Dr.s, dentists, special ops with US military, and diplomats. As stated before, and through your own example, more people are being caught planning the act than committing it - we also need Muslim allies to assist in combating extremism - I'll leave the vetting to the constitution, laws, and the experts
5-6 Same question - Of course we can't take all immigrants - issues should be resolved with aid in the home country, but there are crises at hand - there are quotas set by the government based on criteria beyond me. However, we have a well established history of giving priority to refugees - and they receive citizenship. Religious persecution, WWI, WWII, then Asian Refugees after Vietnam, Colombian and others in 80's, African in 90s.
7. Yes! It breaks the first amendment- the state can not endorse nor oppose specific religions.
8. You've asked that question 3 times - we have had a vetting policy and more agencies and money than I can count working on it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
NorCalBrock
Branched out member
- Location
- Chico
Let me put it another way: I have 5 good friends from the Middle East- all second generation. 4 whose parents are from Iran and 1 from Pakistan - 2 are pediatricians, 1 is PHD researching plant disease, one is a carpenter, and one is a wanna be DJ who loves chronic and doesn't know how to make cereal. None of them are radical or even practicing Islam..4/5 are contributing members to society...all are great people.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
NorCalBrock
Branched out member
- Location
- Chico
http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...umps-muslim-ban-idea-isnt-really-same-jimmy-/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
