Donald Trump should be commended for his Muslim Ban.

[H10]

On 1/30/2017 at 4:35 PM, Rue said:

He hasn't banned west/central asia yet or the actual countries of the ME producing the most terrorists which renders his claim to the above suspect.

As well banning everyone arbitrarily from those countries punishes the innocent. No one has suggested the US shouldn't screen or have the discretion to turn people back but to just blanket ban is the issue.

The US has always had legal power to ban and use its discretion at the borders. This one takes the discretion away to do that and lumps everyone in one category.

You never cease to amaze me. For someone who claims he is against discrimination you now think someone because TRump said he would be a bigot and now is, this is laudable? Yah you got to hand it to  terrorists then. They say they are going to kill innocent people, then do just that. Using your reasoning that is admirable.

 

 

Banning terrorist states is not discrimination.  How do you check if someone is a terrorist in Syria when half the government is controlld by ISIS?  Do you understand ISIS controlled many government offices and can print off any document they want?  It is not arbitrary, it comes from a list of terrorist states from Obama.

[OftenWrong]

6 hours ago, Argus said:

They can do pretty much whatever they want. For example, they can override his presidential orders, refuse to accept his judicial appointments, and refuse to pass any of the legislation he wants.

They COULD do that... and there could be a hot day in February. But it's not LIKELY. Politics is prostitution.

 

[Hal 9000]

17 minutes ago, hernanday said:

Banning terrorist states is not discrimination.  How do you check if someone is a terrorist in Syria when half the government is controlld by ISIS?  Do you understand ISIS controlled many government offices and can print off any document they want?  It is not arbitrary, it comes from a list of terrorist states from Obama.

Sure, but what about Sudan, Yemen and Somalia?  Surely they love westerners.  And it's not like Iraq is overrun with ISIS...and Iran - well, we know Obama loves them, but how do they feel about us.  Libya? Another USA loving country, just ask Hillary.  

BTW - 6 of those 7 countries don't allow Israeli's into their country.

[Rue]

2 hours ago, hernanday said:

Banning terrorist states is not discrimination.  How do you check if someone is a terrorist in Syria when half the government is controlld by ISIS?  Do you understand ISIS controlled many government offices and can print off any document they want?  It is not arbitrary, it comes from a list of terrorist states from Obama.

He didn't ban any state. A state is inanimate. He can only ban people not states.He is banning people not states. He claims he is banning ALL people from certain states. In fact all countries including the US regularly limit visas for entry from people coming from certain states. Countries do it all the time. There is nothing new in a constantly changing quota of visas allowed and limited from states designated.

During the Harper regime, visas to Mexicans were stopped. Mexicans were in fact banned.

The issue was Trump stated on national t.v. he was banning all MUSLIMS from these states. He used the words Muslim Ban. The issue is not that the US does not have the right to ban people or limit visas. The issue is when the SOLE criteria for the ban is the people being MUSLIM then it becomes a problem.

Had Harper stated he was banning Mexicans simply because they were Mexican and no other reason, it could be been challenged as unconstitutional.

In the US banning Muslims solely because they are Muslim violates the US constitution. There must be objective security criteria. Religiob by itself won't justify the ban.  A blanket ban as well altogether takes away the discretion of the Customs Officer to vet and review.  It takes that power away. When you take that discretionary power away completely, it then violates the constitution unless the ban is temporary not permanent, based on things other than just religion and is reviewed every 30, or 60, or  90 days. 

I repeat again if you want to ban everyone from a certain country then it can happen and it does happen but it has to be based on a standard other than religion alone, and that standard must be subject to further review and be capable of being changed as circumstances in the banned nation change.

.When you make the deportation criteria only about religion, it is going to raise a backlash if religion is the only criteria stated.

Trump stated MUSLIM ban. He then contradicted his comment by stating it was not a ban against Muslims and then in the next sentence stating  he will take in Christians from Syria but will ban Muslims from Syria. That's where he showed he's treating refugees in Syria based on entry based on their religion and automatically disqualifying refugees simply because they are Muslim.

That violates the UN Refugee Treaty the US signed and it flies in the race of US laws that as a basic principle of its democratic foundation does not discriminate solely based on religion.

This is why his yes men scrambled do to damage control and say it was a citizen ban not a religious ban and was only temporary not permanent. They were trying to avoid arguments that will be raised in the US Supreme Court to overturn his edict.

I repeat again, legally Trump and his government as always had and will always have the power to limit visas of entry from certain states. They just can't do it based only on the religion of the person as he sole criteria. There still has to be a vetting process that determines criteria other than religion alone  for it to avoid being illegal or unconstitutional. That vetting criteria has to be subject to change as well when circumstances in the country of origin whose citizens are being banned, changes.

Trump wanted to make a point of exercising security screening in an openly discriminatory manner against ALL Muslims from certain nations to pander to the people who elected him. The issue to limit visas and refuse entry for security issues is not the issue. Preventing people from entry solely because they are Muslim and not vetting them for any other criteria remains the issue.

The US has the technology to screen. Please don't tell me some old woman coming to reunite with her family is a terrorist that needs to be banned. That's just b.s.

You want to profile young Muslim men travelling alone, from ANYWHERE, that's a reality in this day and age and is going to happen. Its a red flag criteria but  it doesn't mean you don't go further and test and vet the young man and give him a chance to disclose his information and speak.. That's the difference or is supposed to be the difference between the US and ISIL or Iran or Russia. Its supposed allow people to defend themselves.

In any event the US legal system and the checks and balances of the Senate and House of Representatives will assure whatever the new regs are they will be more than just banning people based on religion. It won't make it by the Senate, House of Rep. or Supreme Court of the US without it expanding the vetting criteria to more than religion and it won't allow permanent visa bans, only temporary ones even where justified. Temporary bans can be reinstated over and over having the effect of being indefinite but the review process has to go on and on after a certain period of time to keep checking if circumstances changed in the country of origin where the visas are being restricted. 

Now take for example Somalia. There is no government there. None. So the US has the perfect right to say, hey we don't accept people from Somalia at this time because we can't verify identity properly. No visas. When a government is established that issues passports, we will then reconsider issuing vias. That's far different than saying, we are banning Somalis simply because they are Muslim. There is a difference in how its stated and what it means.

One criteria is based on something objective. The other is subjective that suggests Trump hates all Muslims and is going to base his criteria on their being Muslim nothing else to justify deeming them non eligible.

The choice of words Trump used were deliberately discriminatory. He did not use the words Muslim Ban by accident. Its why Pence was scambling to change Muslim ban to citizen ban and no, states are not banned.

Trumps ugly display of scapegoating and singling out Muslims simply because they are Muslim is just not right.

McKenzie King did the same thing with Jews sending them back to their death in the holocaust during WW2. After WW2 witht he exception of France and the US and to a lesser extent Britain. Jews were displaced and because they were Jews no one would take them. That's why my people created a nation. We had no choice. No one wanted us and Jews had no money to bribe their way into countries.

Muslim refugees, are they animals? Are they all bad people? No the US and world does not have unlimited capacity to aborb them all. No. We know that. Some yes. That's all we are saying, some.

As for immigrants, the criteria for immigration eligibility is supposed to be objective not subjective. It should be based on merit, ability to speak the country language and fill a job that is vacant in the country. Immigration policy is about matching potential incoming to employment compatible connections in  Canada to create a win-win, a productive immigrant who can assimilate and contribute quickly to the economy.

No we can't take every refugee in the world as the idiot Mayor of Toronto would make it sound and dump them in Toronto. No Toronto can ot be a haven for illegal refugees and immigrants. That was a stupid thing to say.

Illegals whether they claim to be refugees or immigrants are illegal because they can't speak the official languages of Canada and don't have skills that will assure they get a job and contribute to the economy.

At best they become a permanent underclass exploited as illegal cheap labour and prone to crime, mental illness, domestic violence and chronic disease brought on by the stress.

We set immigrants up for failure dumping them in Canada without proper fitting. Refugees by definition are not capable of being independent. They necessarily will be dependent on the state for many years if not generations.

We have to balance security and economic needs and factors with being fair. Its possible but it requires we speak carefully and not in such simplistic hateful terms like Trump or others on both sides of the debate.

The truth is somewhere in the middle and how we balance state and individual needs and security issues. There is no one size fits all approach.

 

Edited February 2, 2017 by Rue

[H10]

4 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

Sure, but what about Sudan, Yemen and Somalia?  Surely they love westerners.  And it's not like Iraq is overrun with ISIS...and Iran - well, we know Obama loves them, but how do they feel about us.  Libya? Another USA loving country, just ask Hillary.  

BTW - 6 of those 7 countries don't allow Israeli's into their country.

Are we just suppose to pretend that the turkish libyans didn't genocide the majority black libyan population after gaddafi fell?

[CITIZEN_2015]

5 hours ago, ?Impact said:

 

Reagan became President in 1981, but the Shah of Iran (monarch) fell in February 1979, about 9 months before the hostage crisis began. I don't know if your 'idiot peanut brain' is a reference to Carter (he was a peanut farmer) but he became president 3 years earlier; while it is a violation of the rules of this forum to use such insults, if it is against Carter it will be let to slide but if it is against Reagan then it will probably be censored.

I should have said he was US president instead of he became a president. But my earlier comments that his policies led to downfall of monarch clearly indicates that it was Carter I was referring to and it is not insult if it is true. He was a peanut farmer and a peanut brain too.

[OftenWrong]

3 hours ago, Rue said:

Trumps ugly display of scapegoating and singling out Muslims simply because they are Muslim is just not right.

Trump is the iconic ugly American.

[kactus]

11 hours ago, Rue said:

He didn't ban any state. A state is inanimate. He can only ban people not states.He is banning people not states. He claims he is banning ALL people from certain states. In fact all countries including the US regularly limit visas for entry from people coming from certain states. Countries do it all the time. There is nothing new in a constantly changing quota of visas allowed and limited from states designated.

During the Harper regime, visas to Mexicans were stopped. Mexicans were in fact banned.

The issue was Trump stated on national t.v. he was banning all MUSLIMS from these states. He used the words Muslim Ban. The issue is not that the US does not have the right to ban people or limit visas. The issue is when the SOLE criteria for the ban is the people being MUSLIM then it becomes a problem.

Had Harper stated he was banning Mexicans simply because they were Mexican and no other reason, it could be been challenged as unconstitutional.

In the US banning Muslims solely because they are Muslim violates the US constitution. There must be objective security criteria. Religiob by itself won't justify the ban.  A blanket ban as well altogether takes away the discretion of the Customs Officer to vet and review.  It takes that power away. When you take that discretionary power away completely, it then violates the constitution unless the ban is temporary not permanent, based on things other than just religion and is reviewed every 30, or 60, or  90 days. 

I repeat again if you want to ban everyone from a certain country then it can happen and it does happen but it has to be based on a standard other than religion alone, and that standard must be subject to further review and be capable of being changed as circumstances in the banned nation change.

.When you make the deportation criteria only about religion, it is going to raise a backlash if religion is the only criteria stated.

Trump stated MUSLIM ban. He then contradicted his comment by stating it was not a ban against Muslims and then in the next sentence stating  he will take in Christians from Syria but will ban Muslims from Syria. That's where he showed he's treating refugees in Syria based on entry based on their religion and automatically disqualifying refugees simply because they are Muslim.

That violates the UN Refugee Treaty the US signed and it flies in the race of US laws that as a basic principle of its democratic foundation does not discriminate solely based on religion.

This is why his yes men scrambled do to damage control and say it was a citizen ban not a religious ban and was only temporary not permanent. They were trying to avoid arguments that will be raised in the US Supreme Court to overturn his edict.

I repeat again, legally Trump and his government as always had and will always have the power to limit visas of entry from certain states. They just can't do it based only on the religion of the person as he sole criteria. There still has to be a vetting process that determines criteria other than religion alone  for it to avoid being illegal or unconstitutional. That vetting criteria has to be subject to change as well when circumstances in the country of origin whose citizens are being banned, changes.

Trump wanted to make a point of exercising security screening in an openly discriminatory manner against ALL Muslims from certain nations to pander to the people who elected him. The issue to limit visas and refuse entry for security issues is not the issue. Preventing people from entry solely because they are Muslim and not vetting them for any other criteria remains the issue.

The US has the technology to screen. Please don't tell me some old woman coming to reunite with her family is a terrorist that needs to be banned. That's just b.s.

You want to profile young Muslim men travelling alone, from ANYWHERE, that's a reality in this day and age and is going to happen. Its a red flag criteria but  it doesn't mean you don't go further and test and vet the young man and give him a chance to disclose his information and speak.. That's the difference or is supposed to be the difference between the US and ISIL or Iran or Russia. Its supposed allow people to defend themselves.

In any event the US legal system and the checks and balances of the Senate and House of Representatives will assure whatever the new regs are they will be more than just banning people based on religion. It won't make it by the Senate, House of Rep. or Supreme Court of the US without it expanding the vetting criteria to more than religion and it won't allow permanent visa bans, only temporary ones even where justified. Temporary bans can be reinstated over and over having the effect of being indefinite but the review process has to go on and on after a certain period of time to keep checking if circumstances changed in the country of origin where the visas are being restricted. 

Now take for example Somalia. There is no government there. None. So the US has the perfect right to say, hey we don't accept people from Somalia at this time because we can't verify identity properly. No visas. When a government is established that issues passports, we will then reconsider issuing vias. That's far different than saying, we are banning Somalis simply because they are Muslim. There is a difference in how its stated and what it means.

One criteria is based on something objective. The other is subjective that suggests Trump hates all Muslims and is going to base his criteria on their being Muslim nothing else to justify deeming them non eligible.

The choice of words Trump used were deliberately discriminatory. He did not use the words Muslim Ban by accident. Its why Pence was scambling to change Muslim ban to citizen ban and no, states are not banned.

Trumps ugly display of scapegoating and singling out Muslims simply because they are Muslim is just not right.

McKenzie King did the same thing with Jews sending them back to their death in the holocaust during WW2. After WW2 witht he exception of France and the US and to a lesser extent Britain. Jews were displaced and because they were Jews no one would take them. That's why my people created a nation. We had no choice. No one wanted us and Jews had no money to bribe their way into countries.

Muslim refugees, are they animals? Are they all bad people? No the US and world does not have unlimited capacity to aborb them all. No. We know that. Some yes. That's all we are saying, some.

As for immigrants, the criteria for immigration eligibility is supposed to be objective not subjective. It should be based on merit, ability to speak the country language and fill a job that is vacant in the country. Immigration policy is about matching potential incoming to employment compatible connections in  Canada to create a win-win, a productive immigrant who can assimilate and contribute quickly to the economy.

No we can't take every refugee in the world as the idiot Mayor of Toronto would make it sound and dump them in Toronto. No Toronto can ot be a haven for illegal refugees and immigrants. That was a stupid thing to say.

Illegals whether they claim to be refugees or immigrants are illegal because they can't speak the official languages of Canada and don't have skills that will assure they get a job and contribute to the economy.

At best they become a permanent underclass exploited as illegal cheap labour and prone to crime, mental illness, domestic violence and chronic disease brought on by the stress.

We set immigrants up for failure dumping them in Canada without proper fitting. Refugees by definition are not capable of being independent. They necessarily will be dependent on the state for many years if not generations.

We have to balance security and economic needs and factors with being fair. Its possible but it requires we speak carefully and not in such simplistic hateful terms like Trump or others on both sides of the debate.

The truth is somewhere in the middle and how we balance state and individual needs and security issues. There is no one size fits all approach.

 

Consider yourself privilleged being a citizen of a country (Canada) where these values are upheld...

Just imagine the ban on muslims today will gradually turn into ban on work visa for muslims, then their citizenship revoked under the pretext to define them, they are earning too much money etc,etc,etc..It's same way your folks endured at the hands of nazis gradually...It is all just the matter of crossing that threshold...

Edited February 2, 2017 by kactus

[SpankyMcFarland]

As for the numbers affected by this EO, thousands were delayed and I would like to see more on the small number allegedly detained and where that fact comes from exactly.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

As for the numbers affected by this EO, thousands were delayed and I would like to see more on the small number allegedly detained and where that fact comes from exactly.

 

True, but far more thousands of travelers are routinely delayed for many reasons unrelated to travel bans.   Others are detained for inspection and deportation.

President Obama deported millions of people.

[segnosaur]

14 hours ago, hernanday said:

Banning terrorist states is not discrimination.  How do you check if someone is a terrorist in Syria when half the government is controlld by ISIS?  Do you understand ISIS controlled many government offices and can print off any document they want?  It is not arbitrary, it comes from a list of terrorist states from Obama.

Refugees do not just show up at the border and say "I'm a refugee let me in".

Prior to Trump's ban, potential refugees had significant hurdles that they had to clear before they could gain entry to the U.S. They often have to go through the U.N. as the first step. Then they go through multiple interviews by U.S. intelligence agencies, and have their fingerprints and other identifying information run through various databases. The whole process can take over a year. And even after all that is done, a final check is done by border guards at the point of entry.

Even if the potential refugee does not have proper government identification, the length of time and the number of checks that are done should eliminate the vast majority of risk. Does it drop the risk to 0%? No, you could never get that low. But at this point, you are probably at a greater risk of harm from natural born Americans than you are from refugees.

Trump keeps talking about "extreme vetting", but that's already being done.

http://refugees.org/explore-the-issues/our-work-with-refugees/security-screening/

[segnosaur]

14 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

Sure, but what about Sudan, Yemen and Somalia?  Surely they love westerners.  And it's not like Iraq is overrun with ISIS...and Iran - well, we know Obama loves them, but how do they feel about us.  Libya? Another USA loving country, just ask Hillary.  

BTW - 6 of those 7 countries don't allow Israeli's into their country.

You do realize that refugees often are people that don't agree with their government.

The fact that some of those countries don't allow Israelis in is irrelevant. Heck, if there were an Israeli-loving person in Syria its MORE likely that they would be a refugee.

[segnosaur]

20 hours ago, betsy said:

Re: Trump's plan for "safe zones" not being thought out wel

That you say Trump doesn't know the answers - that's just pure speculation.  You talk like you're a fly on the wall and you can listen to all the private meetings.

Why should you give the benefit of the doubt?  Because like me, you don't have the answers either.  

While I may not have been privy to any meetings Trump has had regarding the establishment of safe zones, and while I may not be a mind reader, I think we can easily look at Trump's track record of incomplete and poorly thought-out policies.

Take for example is initial plan during the election itself: First Trump called for a Muslim ban, then only later coming up with the phrase "extreme vetting" (a term by the way that still hasn't been explained, or what its going to add to the existing U.S. screening process). If Trump had thought things through, why didn't he talk about extreme vetting in the first place? And how about once the ban was actually implemented: security agencies were not contacted, and the details of how the ban was to be implemented were never communicated to the people actually working at the customs offices. And of course they ended up having to go back and alter their ban because they found it was affecting people it shouldn't have. This is not the mark of a well thought out plan.

Or how about Trump's plan to defeat ISIS... at various points Trump has said he'd fire all the generals, that he'd give the generals 30 days to come up with a plan to defeat ISIS, and that he didn't need the General's input because he's smart. Clearly this is an example of Trump flailing around making comments that haven't been thought out properly.

These are not the signs of a leader who has clearly thought through his policies and has specific plans for implementation. These are the signs of a leader who is flailing around wildly, flinging whatever he can think of against the wall to see what sticks. While its possible that Trump has a logical plan in place to implement safe zones, the fact that he's shown so often in the past to be incoherent and inconsistent with policy, combined with the lack of details that have so far been given should make anyone skeptical that he has a rational plan for safe zones in place.

As the saying goes... fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me 3 times, I'm a gullible Trump supporter.

[betsy]

14 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

While I may not have been privy to any meetings Trump has had regarding the establishment of safe zones, and while I may not be a mind reader, I think we can easily look at Trump's track record of incomplete and poorly thought-out policies.

Take for example is initial plan during the election itself: First Trump called for a Muslim ban, then only later coming up with the phrase "extreme vetting" (a term by the way that still hasn't been explained, or what its going to add to the existing U.S. screening process). If Trump had thought things through, why didn't he talk about extreme vetting in the first place? And how about once the ban was actually implemented: security agencies were not contacted, and the details of how the ban was to be implemented were never communicated to the people actually working at the customs offices. And of course they ended up having to go back and alter their ban because they found it was affecting people it shouldn't have. This is not the mark of a well thought out plan.

Or how about Trump's plan to defeat ISIS... at various points Trump has said he'd fire all the generals, that he'd give the generals 30 days to come up with a plan to defeat ISIS, and that he didn't need the General's input because he's smart. Clearly this is an example of Trump flailing around making comments that haven't been thought out properly.

These are not the signs of a leader who has clearly thought through his policies and has specific plans for implementation. These are the signs of a leader who is flailing around wildly, flinging whatever he can think of against the wall to see what sticks. While its possible that Trump has a logical plan in place to implement safe zones, the fact that he's shown so often in the past to be incoherent and inconsistent with policy, combined with the lack of details that have so far been given should make anyone skeptical that he has a rational plan for safe zones in place.

As the saying goes... fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me 3 times, I'm a gullible Trump supporter.

 

SPECULATIONS!

 

He's appointed his Cabinet.  While he's entitled to his own opinion about torture, he said he'd defer to Mathis....that alone, busted your theories about him!  

 

 

 

[segnosaur]

2 minutes ago, betsy said:

SPECULATIONS!

Speculations based on past history and other evidence.

And by the way, why do you keep trying to use different colors and fonts? Do you really think that magically makes your comments more convincing, instead of how it actually makes your comments look childish and petty?

He's appointed his Cabinet.  While he's entitled to his own opinion about torture, he said he'd defer to Mathis.

The same Mattis that is actually angry because he wasn't consulted about the ban before the day it was actually signed?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/30/trump-faces-blowback-from-cabinet-diplomats-for-refugee-ban.html

(Hey, its a fox news link... you should like that.)

...that alone, busted your theories about him! 

Uhhh... no, it doesn't. Not sure how Trump appointing a cabinet, and then claiming he will take Mattis's advice on Torture shows in any way that Trump regularly thinks through his policies. Heck, he didn't even bother consulting Mattis before implementing his travel ban.

 

[kactus]

15 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

and Iran - well, we know Obama loves them, but how do they feel about us.

....Based on what did Obama love Iranians? Were Iran and the US allies during his presidency to draw such conclusion!? Frankly it's tiring these regurgitated stories repeated by people who do not have any knowledge. Do you have first hand experience of how ordinary Iranians actually feel or are you unable to distinguish the people from the government?

[betsy]

37 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

Speculations based on past history and other evidence.

And by the way, why do you keep trying to use different colors and fonts? Do you really think that magically makes your comments more convincing, instead of how it actually makes your comments look childish and petty?

 

 

The same Mattis that is actually angry because he wasn't consulted about the ban before the day it was actually signed?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/30/trump-faces-blowback-from-cabinet-diplomats-for-refugee-ban.html

(Hey, its a fox news link... you should like that.)

 

 

Uhhh... no, it doesn't. Not sure how Trump appointing a cabinet, and then claiming he will take Mattis's advice on Torture shows in any way that Trump regularly thinks through his policies. Heck, he didn't even bother consulting Mattis before implementing his travel ban.

 

What history?

When did Trump serve as a public servant in the past? 

 

SPECULATIONS, Segnosaur.  That isn't a rebuttal.  It's simply an opinion - and you're entitled to it.  Just don't expect me to debate with you about your silly speculative opinion.  I'll leave you now to your speculative musings.....until you've got something worth responding to.

Edited February 2, 2017 by betsy

[Argus]

5 hours ago, kactus said:

Just imagine the ban on muslims today will gradually turn into ban on work visa for muslims

There is no ban on Muslims.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, segnosaur said:

You do realize that refugees often are people that don't agree with their government.

But mostly they're economic migrants. If you look at the acceptance rates for those applying as refugees to most European countries over the past ten years you'd find 90% being rejected. And I think most of us know the stream of migrants flowing into Europe are almost entirely economic migrants.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, segnosaur said:

Refugees do not just show up at the border and say "I'm a refugee let me in".

Prior to Trump's ban, potential refugees had significant hurdles that they had to clear before they could gain entry to the U.S. They often have to go through the U.N. as the first step. Then they go through multiple interviews by U.S. intelligence agencies, and have their fingerprints and other identifying information run through various databases. The whole process can take over a year. And even after all that is done, a final check is done by border guards at the point of entry.

Or they can get on a plane for Canada, flush their passports, claim refugee status, and be out on the street by end of day.

[Hal 9000]

5 hours ago, segnosaur said:

While I may not have been privy to any meetings Trump has had regarding the establishment of safe zones, and while I may not be a mind reader, I think we can easily look at Trump's track record of incomplete and poorly thought-out policies.

Take for example is initial plan during the election itself: First Trump called for a Muslim ban, then only later coming up with the phrase "extreme vetting" (a term by the way that still hasn't been explained, or what its going to add to the existing U.S. screening process). If Trump had thought things through, why didn't he talk about extreme vetting in the first place? And how about once the ban was actually implemented: security agencies were not contacted, and the details of how the ban was to be implemented were never communicated to the people actually working at the customs offices. And of course they ended up having to go back and alter their ban because they found it was affecting people it shouldn't have. This is not the mark of a well thought out plan.

Or how about Trump's plan to defeat ISIS... at various points Trump has said he'd fire all the generals, that he'd give the generals 30 days to come up with a plan to defeat ISIS, and that he didn't need the General's input because he's smart. Clearly this is an example of Trump flailing around making comments that haven't been thought out properly.

These are not the signs of a leader who has clearly thought through his policies and has specific plans for implementation. These are the signs of a leader who is flailing around wildly, flinging whatever he can think of against the wall to see what sticks. While its possible that Trump has a logical plan in place to implement safe zones, the fact that he's shown so often in the past to be incoherent and inconsistent with policy, combined with the lack of details that have so far been given should make anyone skeptical that he has a rational plan for safe zones in place.

As the saying goes... fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me 3 times, I'm a gullible Trump supporter.

Extreme vetting is like extreme hoarding - only opposite.  And, as far as vetting from the UN, I wouldn't trust them either, they're not looking out for the host country, they have their own agendas.  

[?Impact]

19 hours ago, Rue said:

During the Harper regime, visas to Mexicans were stopped. Mexicans were in fact banned.

I thought the issues was the Mexicans required a visa, and couldn't simply show up at the border with a passport. It was not a ban on travel, but a requirement (as we have with many other countries) to seek a visa before that travel.

Quote

We set immigrants up for failure dumping them in Canada without proper fitting. Refugees by definition are not capable of being independent. They necessarily will be dependent on the state for many years if not generations.

Do you have any real empirical data to cite, and not one-of stories? Canada has been accepting refugees from all over the world for many years, many of them have done very well in this country and I expect there are some that have not. Certainly the children of refugees that get educated in this country are in a good position to succeed.

[marcus]

I look forward to seeing  the brilliant students who are or were planning to study in the U.S. and who are now barred from the U.S., coming to Canada.

[marcus]

19 hours ago, Rue said:

During the Harper regime, visas to Mexicans were stopped. Mexicans were in fact banned.

 

Show some link to back up this claim.

[Cum Laude]

5 hours ago, ?Impact said:

I thought the issues was the Mexicans required a visa, and couldn't simply show up at the border with a passport. It was not a ban on travel, but a requirement (as we have with many other countries) to seek a visa before that travel.

Do you have any real empirical data to cite, and not one-of stories? Canada has been accepting refugees from all over the world for many years, many of them have done very well in this country and I expect there are some that have not. Certainly the children of refugees that get educated in this country are in a good position to succeed.

There’s something else being left out of the discussion. The wealth of a society is a direct function of the trust social compact that exists. When you allow waves of immigration to enter from poor areas of the world where fraud and deceit are rampant, these characteristics end up being imported as well and over time begin to erode the amount of social cohesion that exists.