Trumps Immigration Executive Order

[PDub80]

(01-31-2017, 12:08 PM)Dill Wrote: Is it ok to use scientific polls and election results?

I find it cute and mindbogglingly funny that after this election someone would want to reference "polls" of anything, considering that they couldn't have been more inaccurate. Election results show nothing: zip, zero, zilch in the sense of what is being talked about. Better recheck your thought process on what convinces you your ideas are right about this stuff. Polls 

[Belsnickel]

(01-31-2017, 12:51 PM)PDub80 Wrote: I find it cute and mindbogglingly funny that after this election someone would want to reference "polls" of anything, considering that they couldn't have been more inaccurate. Election results show nothing: zip, zero, zilch in the sense of what is being talked about. Better recheck your thought process on what convinces you your ideas are right about this stuff. Polls 

That's actually false. Most of the more well-known polls actually came out about accurate. It was the pundits interpreting the polls that got it wrong, but the polling itself was correct which as election day neared showed Clinton winning the popular vote by 2-3 percentage points.

[PDub80]

(01-31-2017, 11:58 AM)Bengalzona Wrote:















I got a better idea. How about you start opening your eyes and ears and get some "real life" perspective.

Or perhaps there is a reason you don't do that....

Wow, golly gee wiz. In 8 whole pictures you've been able to ensnare 10's of or 100's of MILLIONS OF PEOPLE as wanting Muslims kicked out of the entire US. THIS is what you're basing your position on? Pfffffft!!!! Again... please get out from behind your computer or phone and go actually do the work and talk to a bunch of different people with different positions on this than you. 

[PDub80]

(01-31-2017, 12:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's actually false. Most of the more well-known polls actually came out about accurate. It was the pundits interpreting the polls that got it wrong, but the polling itself was correct which as election day neared showed Clinton winning the popular vote by 2-3 percentage points.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1TIGY_enUS721US721&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=election+polls+wrong


I showed you mine ^

Now you show me yours. Multiple links showing the pre-election polls were right, please. If you don't have a ton (like I do), then probably best to realize you're uninformed and take a back seat at this point.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-31-2017, 12:12 PM)GMDino Wrote: His order "protects our borders" by banning people from countries that have never had a refugee attack us, but allows them from places where terrorists HAVE attacked us.

I don't believe that these refugees have "civil rights" in the US.  I just think he went too far based on some sort of misguided understanding of the world and wanting to prove his base that he is tough and a man of his word.

Sadly he didn't even do that right.

So someone clarify something for me.  Is this a list that was developed by the Obama Admin.  If so what did the list pertain to?  

[GMDino]

(01-31-2017, 12:59 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So someone clarify something for me.  Is this a list that was developed by the Obama Admin.  If so what did the list pertain to?  

Yes.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

Quote:Bonus: Obama’s “seven countries” taken out of context: Trump’s claim that the seven countries listed in the executive order came from the Obama administration is conveniently left unexplained. A bit of background: soon after the December 2015 terror attack in San Bernadino, President Obama signed an amendment to the Visa Waiver Program, a law that allows citizens of 38 countries to travel to the United States without obtaining visas (and gives Americans reciprocal privileges in those countries). The amendment removed from the Visa Waiver Program dual nationals who were citizens of four countries (Iraq, Iran, Sudan, and Syria), or anyone who had recently traveled to those countries. The Obama administration added three more to the list (Libya, Somalia, and Yemen), bringing the total to seven. But this law did not bar anyone from coming to the United States. It only required a relatively small percentage of people to obtain a visa first. And to avoid punishing people who clearly had good reasons to travel to the relevant countries, the Obama administration used a waiver provided by Congress for certain travelers, including journalists, aid workers, and officials from international organizations like the United Nations.

More there on the visas and the increased vetting that came of it.

[Bengalzona]

(01-31-2017, 12:47 PM)PDub80 Wrote: 1% of anything is not many in the sense you were implying. A gross minority of anything is not many in the sense you were implying. Many was an ignorant, sensationalist use of the word in the sense you were implying.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1TIGY_enUS721US721&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=many+definition

He was elected by a large group of many, yes. To point at that group as the "many" who want Muslims kicked out of the US, are racist, xenophobic etc. etc. etc. is unsubstantiated, sensationalist, and untrue.

You chose to create an implication that wasn't there to satisfy your own stereotype, which is what people do when they want to create something "unsubstantiated, sensationalist, and untrue."

At what point did I state anyone was "racist" or " xenophobic"?

The fact is, I believe many people who don't like Muslims in the U.S. feel sincere in their belief. They limit their anger to the religion, not the race of the person, and they do not feel the same way about people of other religions (i.e. not racist or xenophobic).

[*michaelsean*]

(01-31-2017, 01:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yes.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/




More there on the visas and the increased vetting that came of it.

I wasn't trying to say he did the same thing, just where the list came from.  Meaning is it looking in the future of where people who mean to do harm might likely come from.  

[Bengalzona]

(01-31-2017, 12:55 PM)PDub80 Wrote: Wow, golly gee wiz. In 8 whole pictures you've been able to ensnare 10's of or 100's of MILLIONS OF PEOPLE as wanting Muslims kicked out of the entire US. THIS is what you're basing your position on? Pfffffft!!!! Again... please get out from behind your computer or phone and go actually do the work and talk to a bunch of different people with different positions on this than you. 

Who said "tens or hundreds of millions of people"? I've only seen that in your post... along with the assertion that these people don't exist because you have never met any and that you have met many more people than I have.

[*PhilHos*]

(01-31-2017, 01:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yes.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

Quote:But this law did not bar anyone from coming to the United States. It only required a relatively small percentage of people to obtain a visa first.

If it required people to obtain a visa first, then it DID bar people from coming to the United States. It barred anyone from those listed countries without a visa. Just sayin'.

[djam]

(01-31-2017, 12:49 PM)GMDino Wrote: Is it not possible to be mad at both?

Or to be mad that one has to flee their homes and not happy with where they end up.

Yeah of course it is. But its still a personal thing for people. Its not something that I believe government should sponsor. I mean really, we have a very long history of helping other nations with aid and taking in refugee's in the past, and it has largly failed to help who it was supposed to help. I think a lot of people kind of feel like it hasnt gotten us anywhere except to be further accused of being a bully, bigoted, racist, etc, etc. I've met people who feel that way. They think it doesnt do anything but add more strain to the system, and if you cant even get appreciated for the honor in it, then whats the point? I mean Reagan brought in a lot of refugee's, and there were a lot of people against him for it. The results from doing that havent been good, from what people have said. Christians have long supported helping refugee's, but they are still considered to be the most bigoted group of racist in the nation. What's the point anymore ya know? It seems like everyone gets hurt when we open our doors that way. So the only fix seems to be keeping government out of it and leaving it to the people. But talking crap and hashtags arent going to cut it. 

[GMDino]

(01-31-2017, 01:11 PM)PhilHos Wrote: If it required people to obtain a visa first, then it DID bar people from coming to the United States. It barred anyone from those listed countries without a visa. Just sayin'.

No, it set up better vetting for a small group.  It didn't ban entire populations from certain countries.  Nor did it bad people who already had their visas or green cards.

[*PhilHos*]

(01-31-2017, 01:47 PM)GMDino Wrote: No, it set up better vetting for a small group.  It didn't ban entire populations from certain countries.  Nor did it bad people who already had their visas or green cards.

No, it banned people from specific countries if they didn't have a visa. If they had a visa and were from those places, they could get in. If they didn't have a visa and were from those places, they were BANNED from entering the country.

I'm not saying it's the same thing as Trump's EO, but it did bar people from entering this country: people without visas.

As to the setting "up better vetting"; supposedly, that's Trump's reason for his temporary suspension, right? So shouldn't you be in favor for his order, too?

[GMDino]

(01-31-2017, 01:11 PM)PhilHos Wrote: If it required people to obtain a visa first, then it DID bar people from coming to the United States. It barred anyone from those listed countries without a visa. Just sayin'.

(01-31-2017, 02:01 PM)PhilHos Wrote: No, it banned people from specific countries if they didn't have a visa. If they had a visa and were from those places, they could get in. If they didn't have a visa and were from those places, they were BANNED from entering the country.

I'm not saying it's the same thing as Trump's EO, but it did bar people from entering this country: people without visas.

As to the setting "up better vetting"; supposedly, that's Trump's reason for his temporary suspension, right? So shouldn't you be in favor for his order, too?

Quote:But this law did not bar anyone from coming to the United States. It only required a relatively small percentage of people to obtain a visa first.

Even during that six month period the current administration keeps citing people were allowed in.  It slowed down, but it was not a "ban".

If the current administration explained how they are going to vet immigrants better I suppose I could get on board with that.  I suppose have no refugees commit terrorist attacks yet means the current vetting is pretty good already.

But "what if" and "boogey man" get's more attention I suppose.

[CageTheBengal]

Trump's order was just a political move the same way it was when he campaigned on un-vetted immigrants pouring in. It's fear mongering. Before Trump our vetting system was one of the if not the most extensive in the world so it was fixing a problem that didn't exist. Just playing to everybody quaking in their boots because they hang on every alternative fact the extreme right wing media throws out there.

It's hypocritical that our government knows more about the immigrants coming to this country than our own President's finances.

[*PhilHos*]

(01-31-2017, 02:10 PM)GMDino Wrote:




Even during that six month period the current administration keeps citing people were allowed in.  It slowed down, but it was not a "ban".

If the current administration explained how they are going to vet immigrants better I suppose I could get on board with that.  I suppose have no refugees commit terrorist attacks yet means the current vetting is pretty good already.

But "what if" and "boogey man" get's more attention I suppose.

It only required a relatively small percentage of people to obtain a visa first.

What do you think happened to those who were required to obtain a visa, but didn't and still tried to enter the country? Were they allowed in or not? If it's the latter, then they were BARRED from entering the country.

[GMDino]

(01-31-2017, 02:21 PM)PhilHos Wrote: It only required a relatively small percentage of people to obtain a visa first.

What do you think happened to those who were required to obtain a visa, but didn't and still tried to enter the country? Were they allowed in or not? If it's the latter, then they were BARRED from entering the country.

Before that, after that, during that...not everyone was let in anyway.  So I'm not sure what your point is.

Trump banned people.  Period.

[*PhilHos*]

(01-31-2017, 02:26 PM)GMDino Wrote: Before that, after that, during that...not everyone was let in anyway.  So I'm not sure what your point is.

Trump banned people.  Period.

The point being that Obama's law DID bar people from coming in. It was pretty obvious.

Trump banned people from certain countries for 90 days.  Period. 

[GMDino]

(01-31-2017, 02:49 PM)PhilHos Wrote: The point being that Obama's law DID bar people from coming in. It was pretty obvious.

Trump banned people from certain countries for 90 days.  Period. 

The point being Obama's action didn't do anything except slow down the visa process.

Trump banned people for 90 days.  

Different.

Heck that's not even mentioning that his "logic" about preventing future attacks doesn't even make sense when he cites 9/11 as a reason for the ban.

It was ill thought out, badly enforced and poorly done.

[*PhilHos*]

(01-31-2017, 02:53 PM)GMDino Wrote: The point being Obama's action didn't do anything except slow down the visa process. Trump banned people for 90 days.   Different. Heck that's not even mentioning that his "logic" about preventing future attacks doesn't even make sense when he cites 9/11 as a reason for the ban. It was ill thought out, badly enforced and poorly done.

Allow me to repeat myself, because you clearly missed it:

(01-31-2017, 02:01 PM)PhilHos Wrote: No, it banned people from specific countries if they didn't have a visa. If they had a visa and were from those places, they could get in. If they didn't have a visa and were from those places, they were BANNED from entering the country.

I'm not saying it's the same thing as Trump's EO, but it did bar people from entering this country: people without visas.

As to the setting "up better vetting"; supposedly, that's Trump's reason for his temporary suspension, right? So shouldn't you be in favor for his order, too?