Trump's so called "revised ban" revisited

[blackbird]

14 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

So why does the west and the EU cozy up to the Saudis? Even if you go with the fact that 9/11 was masterminded, but not really by Bin Laden but via connections from Saudi Arabia. Most of those hijackers were in fact Saudi nationals, but yet every other nation in the Middle East is paying for it by being destroyed. 

My guess is that travellers from Saudi Arabia are not considered a possible threat to the U.S. and the country is considered an ally on the war against terrorism, and/or Saudi Arabia has a vetting system they trust. 

Edited March 12, 2017 by blackbird

[marcus]

54 minutes ago, blackbird said:

My guess is that travellers from Saudi Arabia are not considered a possible threat to the U.S. and the country is considered an ally on the war against terrorism, and/or Saudi Arabia has a vetting system they trust. 

Saudi financially backs ISIS and Al Qaeda.

If this was about American civilian security and terrorism, Saudi Arabia should be first on the list. 

[bush_cheney2004]

5 hours ago, kactus said:

I won't really care if anyone here really thinks he is doing A "great job" as a POTUS but if anyone really cared and decent enough with a bit of morality they would realise that this is not doing anything to help make US safe again but instead unnecessarily increases animosity towards the US. 

What do you think? Please argue rationally instead of resorting to name callings and blankets statements.....

 

Rationally ?    Okay....but please keep your morals out of my country:

1) A U.S. president has wide constitutional discretion to ban entry/travel by any foreign national in the United States, regardless of religion.  

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/01/times-banned-immigrants-170128183528941.html

2) The travel ban is temporary (for now) while extreme vetting measures can be instantiated to further ban undesired foreign nationals from entering the United States.

3) Other nations also have travel bans....notably against Israel. 

4) Other nations have such restrictive visa/passport policies as to result in a de facto travel ban.

5) The travel ban also seeks to stem the flow of legal and illegal refugees/immigrants.   Some nations are far more restrictive.

6)  All majority Muslim nations are not included in the travel ban, ergo it is not a Muslim ban.

 

Being loved by the rest of the world is a Canadian value...no need to project that to the foreign policy of the United States.

 

 

 

Edited March 12, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[Bonam]

3 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

6)  All majority Muslim nations are not included in the travel ban, ergo it is not a Muslim ban.

In fact, of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims, only 179 million live in the affected countries. 89% of the world's Muslims remain free to travel to the US. 

[-1=e^ipi]

7 hours ago, dialamah said:

some Muslim women might want to swim without men in the pool NOT fear-mongering?

That's pretty sexist, and we already have enough sex segregation as it is.

[-1=e^ipi]

If people want sex segregated swimming pools, they should go move to Saudi Arabia, and take their sexism with them.

[OftenWrong]

7 hours ago, blackbird said:

One reason I heard for putting the six countries on the ban list is because they have administrations which are unwilling or unable to properly vet travellers.  Some governments in these countries are in a state of anarchy or hostile to the U.S.  Trump also receives confidential security information from national security agencies that he cannot make public for national security reasons.  He may have specific information which indicates there are genuine terrorist threats from groups in some of these countries.

You're making a lot of sense here, Billy.

[dialamah]

59 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

If people want sex segregated swimming pools, they should go move to Saudi Arabia, and take their sexism with them.

My pool has ladies only times, where mostly middle-aged white women come to do aquacises and sit in the hot tub, and a few random teenage girls play on inner tubes till the pool is opened to the public (and boys) again.   Is that a problem for you?  Shall we decamp to SA because the pool offered ladies-only nights that include aquacise training in the hopes of getting us older gals out?   I'm grateful that the pool is empty and that when I go to use the hot tub, it's not filled with a bunch of hairy guys, some of whom stare a little too much.  

My pool is closed for renos but when it reopens, I'm taking advantage of the sexism and ageism that provides me with a near empty pool, no young kids screaming and splashing all over me and no men who stare too much.  Thank you very much.

[kactus]

6 hours ago, Bonam said:

In fact, of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims, only 179 million live in the affected countries. 89% of the world's Muslims remain free to travel to the US. 

So what you are saying is just because the ban is on a small proportion of the muslim population then it makes it right!? This is not about a muslim ban but people who have been discriminately affected as the result of the ban! And yes it does become an issue when the ban is placed on PHD students and professionals having difficulty entering the US because of this stupid ban.

I don't understand this whole notion of lumping people into a group based on their religious beliefs. Every country should have its own merits based on their history of hostility. what this ban is doing is the opposite...So it's ok to let in citizens from those countries that have a history of terrorist acitivities inside the US soil but it is not ok to allow citizens from these other countries that are professional and decent escaping prosecution in their own country!? This is absurd and it doesn't address the question about terrorism and safety if that was really the case....

If the rationale for this travel ban as many suggest here is based on religion then surely muslims entering the US should be vetted baaed on individual cases and not  a country.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, kactus said:

...So it's ok to let in citizens from those countries that have a history of terrorist acitivities inside the US soil but it is not ok to allow citizens from these other countries that are professional and decent escaping prosecution in their own country!?

 

Yes...it is "OK", and the sovereign right of any nation to do so as it sees fit.   Should Canadians be banned because it granted asylum and welfare payments to an Algerian terrorist who conspired to blow up LAX ?

The U.S. is not responsible for domestic persecutions in other nations and admits entry to refugees/immigrants with strict limits, just as Canada does.

 

 

[kactus]

46 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Yes...it is "OK", and the sovereign right of any nation to do so as it sees fit.   Should Canadians be banned because it granted asylum and welfare payments to an Algerian terrorist who conspired to blow up LAX ?

The U.S. is not responsible for domestic persecutions in other nations and admits entry to refugees/immigrants with strict limits, just as Canada does.

 

 

None sense and you know damn well that discriminating against a group of people to let them into the country is just not valid reasons and the that's why Trumps stupid EO was upheld by the court first time....What a joke!

The US and other western countries have been moaning for a long time about the human rights records and persecutions in the those said countries as a a pre text to levy sanctions. Now that some of the people have immigrated and are seeking safety are turned back by the US because of this ban! Besides.....If the motivation is to stop home grown or foreign terrorists what is stopping the US to go after the real culprits lke Saudi Arabia? The answer to that is pretty obvious....

[bush_cheney2004]

8 minutes ago, kactus said:

None sense and you know damn well that discriminating against a group of people to let them into the country is just not valid reasons and the that's why Trumps stupid EO was upheld by the court first time....What a joke!

 

I don't understand what you mean....any U.S. president has the right and duty to bar entry into the U.S. when desired/necessary.   If the U.S. is not satisfied that such individuals can be adequately screened/vetted, that is more than enough reason for a temporary or permanent ban.   U.S. federal law bans travel/entry for far more foreign nationals than President Trump's previous or current EO for a variety of reasons.

 

Quote

The US and other western countries have been moaning for a long time about the human rights records and persecutions in the those said countries as a a pre text to levy sanctions. Now that some of the people have immigrated and are seeking safety are turned back by the US because of this ban! Besides.....If the motivation is to stop home grown or foreign terrorists what is stopping the US to go after the real culprits lke Saudi Arabia? The answer to that is pretty obvious....

 

Again, the U.S. has detained and deported millions of people back to their country of origin...long before Trump came along.    This is not a human rights issue in the context of travel, border entry, or deportation, for which existing frameworks already existed.   Legal immigration is supported by past and present U.S. administrations.

Edited March 13, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[Topaz]

What a former CIA agent said is they would appear to be very peaceful people  until the call came out to attack the US/Canada for their religious  purposes. I'm sure not all would do it and that is what makes this so hard to detect which ones would.

[?Impact]

5 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Yes...it is "OK", and the sovereign right of any nation to do so as it sees fit.   Should Canadians be banned because it granted asylum and welfare payments to an Algerian terrorist who conspired to blow up LAX

What does you example have to do with anything. You are talking about someone who was traveling on an illegally obtained Canadian passport. Someone who was able to get by both Canadian and American immigration officials.

[kactus]

5 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

I don't understand what you mean....any U.S. president has the right and duty to bar entry into the U.S. when desired/necessary.   If the U.S. is not satisfied that such individuals can be adequately screened/vetted, that is more than enough reason for a temporary or permanent ban.   U.S. federal law bans travel/entry for far more foreign nationals than President Trump's previous or current EO for a variety of reasons.

 

 

Again, the U.S. has detained and deported millions of people back to their country of origin...long before Trump came along.    This is not a human rights issue in the context of travel, border entry, or deportation, for which existing frameworks already existed.   Legal immigration is supported by past and present U.S. administrations.

Doesn't make this EO right nor Trumps decision making ability based on the information available.

I still have not heard a valid/ rational explanation why a professional Iranian national or anyone from the afirementione countries should be stopped entry to US whilst they can make a valuable contribution under the pretext of security whilst a saudi national or anyone else with a track record of terrorist activity is allowed to enter the US. It feels as though any counter arguments put forth here is somehow to exonerate the real culprits and discriminate unreservedly against the nationals from the banned countries....

[blackbird]

13 hours ago, dialamah said:

.Shall we decamp to SA because the pool offered ladies-only nights that include aquacise training in the hopes of getting us older gals out?   I'm grateful that the pool is empty and that when I go to use the hot tub, it's not filled with a bunch of hairy guys, some of whom stare a little too much.

 

Ah, guess you let the cat out of the bag.  You hoped to keep it a secret.  LOL     

[bush_cheney2004]

6 hours ago, ?Impact said:

What does you example have to do with anything. You are talking about someone who was traveling on an illegally obtained Canadian passport. Someone who was able to get by both Canadian and American immigration officials.

 

Just using the same standard being applied to the Saudis.   If travel from Saudi Arabia is bad, then so is travel from Canada (Ahmed Ressam).....poor vetting !

[bush_cheney2004]

4 hours ago, kactus said:

Doesn't make this EO right nor Trumps decision making ability based on the information available.

I still have not heard a valid/ rational explanation why a professional Iranian national or anyone from the afirementione countries should be stopped entry to US whilst they can make a valuable contribution under the pretext of security whilst a saudi national or anyone else with a track record of terrorist activity is allowed to enter the US. It feels as though any counter arguments put forth here is somehow to exonerate the real culprits and discriminate unreservedly against the nationals from the banned countries....

 

The U.S. can "discriminate" against any nationals it wants to, including Canadians.   This is a sovereign right.    Many presidents and U.S. federal law have done this in the past and present.   I have cited several rational reasons and policies that you choose to ignore.  

 

 

[dre]

The ban isn't about safety. Its about Trump hamming it up for the retards who he wants support from. Tapping into anti-immigrant sentiment is just smart politics right now, and its worked very well for him. He probably wouldnt have won the election with the bigot vote.

Edited March 13, 2017 by dre

[GostHacked]

On 3/12/2017 at 4:41 PM, blackbird said:

My guess is that travellers from Saudi Arabia are not considered a possible threat to the U.S. and the country is considered an ally on the war against terrorism, and/or Saudi Arabia has a vetting system they trust. 

News flash!  Osama Bin Laden was born and raised in Saudi Arabia. 17 out of 19 of the hijackers were Saudi Nationals. By that alone that makes Saudi Arabia a higher threat than any other nation on the planet.  Saudi Arabia is a key player in exporting and promoting terrorism in the M.E. Way more than Iran, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, ect COMBINED!

[GostHacked]

2 hours ago, dre said:

The ban isn't about safety. Its about Trump hamming it up for the retards who he wants support from. Tapping into anti-immigrant sentiment is just smart politics right now, and its worked very well for him. He probably wouldnt have won the election with the bigot vote.

I am willing to give Trump a pass on enacting the travel ban, but it does not go far enough or target the right nations. However all the nations that are on the list are the victims of the US's 'war on terror' who have yet to get their shit together after their nations were destroyed for no good f'n reason.

[dre]

1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

I am willing to give Trump a pass on enacting the travel ban, but it does not go far enough or target the right nations. However all the nations that are on the list are the victims of the US's 'war on terror' who have yet to get their shit together after their nations were destroyed for no good f'n reason.

Targeting Muslim nations is retarded to begin with. In 2016 only 24 muslims were found to be involved in any kind of violent extremism... Out of 3.3 million.

10 Thousand gun nuts killed other Americans during that same year.

You tell ME where the focus should be. Could be the way to keep America safe is a ban on Americans.

Anybody that cant see this "ban" for what it is, is a moron. Its simply a political ploy to benefit from anti-immigrant, and anti-muslim sentiment, and its a smart one on Trumps behalf. But make no mistake about it, Trump knows this wont do jack shit to make Americans safer. But even though he knows supporters of it are stupid bigots, hes smart enough to release stupid bigots get to vote too. 

Tackling public safety though immigration policy is never going to work, because half of the worlds psychos are already there. 

Edited March 14, 2017 by dre

[-1=e^ipi]

On 3/13/2017 at 0:21 AM, dialamah said:

I'm grateful that the pool is empty and that when I go to use the hot tub, it's not filled with a bunch of hairy guys, some of whom stare a little too much. 

Out of curiousity, where do transpeople fit into your desire for sex segregated swimming pools? How about non-binary people?

 

Also, in Saudi Arabia, you won't get much men staring at you since you will be covered from head to toe all the time. Isn't that wonderful? It is the perfect society for you!

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Out of curiousity, where do transpeople fit into your desire for sex segregated swimming pools? How about non-binary people?

Possibly they'll have specially designated times too .... And I won't even complain about it.  Plus there are lots of times when its "public" swim for those who are less self conscious.

1 hour ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Also, in Saudi Arabia, you won't get much men staring at you since you will be covered from head to toe all the time. Isn't that wonderful? It is the perfect society for you!

Well middle age and associated body changes have made me much more shy about exposing skin, but I think regular Canadian styles work fine for me for me in most instances.  I could go for a burkini, but I'm pretty sure that would get me even more stares.  And what's to say I wouldn't be harassed or even beat up by people who offer similar suggestions?  

 

[Icebound]

On 3/12/2017 at 3:06 PM, blackbird said:

You are completely out of touch with reality.   Check the website religionofpeace dot com

Jihad report for March 4 to 10th, 2017.

...

Total number killed by terrorist attacks since 9-11:   30,446

 

 

Care to include the stats on how many civilians killed since 9-11 by western-led forces?