And people from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen and Somalia are very currently trying to kill our people.
Yeah..I see your point.
I need to get this off my chest
- Thread starter vraiblonde
- Start date
And people from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen and Somalia are very currently trying to kill our people.
Yeah..I see your point.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
They must be really bad at it.
awpitt
Main Streeter
Yeah, I see our people just dropping like flies at the hands of those countries.
Not yet here..but we've lost plenty over there.
Which is exactly the point.
I can see you and your ilk on Dec 7, 1941: "No I'm not going to do anything. I'm just a security monitor. There's an attack."
Do nothing defensive or preemptive..right? ;-)
Last edited:
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Yea, the point the courts made.
You hand-wringing lefties never have held the security of this nation in very high regard..yeah, we get that..it's very old news, kid.
So how many of those refugees have you volunteered to sponsor?
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Ok, first - we all remember this was supposed to be a *temporary* ban, right?
Does anyone remember why? Take your time. Why might we want to ban travel from a country like, say, Syria or Somalia BUT let IN people from places like Saudi, or Egypt, or Pakistan or Afghanistan? AND why would such a ban only be *temporary*? As in, ninety days? If the reason is they're extremely dangerous, why wouldn't we make it permanent?
Because to admit someone to this country, we need a proper vetting process, and we not only HAVE one for those other nations that we're good with, we have a relationship with those other nations such that we HAVE information about the persons entering or even better - THEY do some of the vetting for us. So Somalis haven't killed Americans - well, here - recently. So why might we want to improve the vetting process from Somalia? Because we don't have one and we have no relationship with their non-existent government.
The State Department previously had a list of nations of concern - https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-restrictions-visa-waiver-program
Strangely, they're pretty much the same countries. I don't think I see a huge difference between what Obama's administration was trying to do, and what Trump is trying to do, except ratchet up the process better.
Is it so hard a case to make?
You are making way too much sense for the progressives here.
8USC1152 deals with treatment of "admissible aliens", 8USC 1182 deals with "inadmissible aliens" and paragraph (f) of that section gives the President wide latitude as to if their entry could/would be detrimental to the nation. Once the President makes his proclamation, as to the inadmissibility, how can they then claim protection under the section dealing with admissibility?
I googled "does the 14th Amendment apply to non-citizens" because that's what thrax had referenced in one of his replies.
A ton of results came up for illegal immigrants and foreign visitors but I didn't go to them because I was specifically looking for whether or not it applied to people who were not within our borders.
I don't know what was in those links cause it didn't address what I was looking for.
black dog
Free America
1983 Hezboollah bombing at a Marine compound in Beirut, Lebanon, that killed 241 US service personnel.
Facts: October 23, 1983 - 241 US service personnel -- including 220 Marines and 21 other service personnel -- are killed by a truck bomb at a Marine compound in Beirut, Lebanon.
Three hundred service members had been living at the four-story building at the airport in Beirut. There were 1,800 Marines stationed in Beirut at the time.
Hezboollah were responsible for 600+ deaths between 82 and 86.
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
You are certainly welcome to invite some of them to move in next to you.
I was trying to refute thrax's point on the 14th Amendment being the basis to knock down the travel ban. Doing research, so I can try to come back with some facts, you know?
Nice try though at painting me for a liberal though.
Last edited:
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
All fine and good, but the entire premise of the ban is what?
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
steppinthrax
Active Member
There is the basic principle in the balance of power in our gov. No one person can have abs power over the people. We have seen in the past where Presidents have "tried" to do things and either resign (Nixon) etc.... I think Trump as well as many on here have a distorted view of how gov works. The fact that the Courts blocked 2 of his executive orders and several times speaks to the above as well as his ability to succeed.
steppinthrax
Active Member
Idk and I really don't care.
Because as a rational and logical human, I tend to look at statistical data and scientific fact to make determinations, instead of relying on emotion intertangled with xenophobia and racism. I'm sure you've heard the low the probability of being killed by an islamic terrorist is. You had a higher chance of getting killed by some crazy white dude with a gun (i.e. what happened yesterday morning in VA) or an automobile accident than ISIS.
I would spend more time trying to remediate threats of higher probabilistic incident rather than concentrating on the small stuff.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Common defense.
The premise is that we have had security and intelligence people tell us that the people trying to come in from certain areas cannot be properly vetted due to lack of good documentation to conduct a screening, and that the "enemy" (strange word when we are not in a time of declared war, but...) has stated they will abuse our system and lack of vetting capability to come to the United States and try to harm the United States. Trump's wording is such that the visas are restricted for a time until a proper screening can actually be performed (or, a process to conduct a proper screening is established).
I wouldn't put too much weight on that situation; far-left judges have their decisions overturned quite often.