Vote to comment and see the results
avatar
25 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Agree
  • Unsure
  • Disagree
  • 2 years ago

    You're aware that this list was made by the previous administration, right?

    • 2 years ago

      @meta_self which list?

    • 2 years ago

      @gigi Of those countries banned from immigration to the US.

    • 2 years ago

      @meta_self I'm not actually referring to the list of the countries nor aim to compare with any previous administration. I'm just making a statement based on common sense regardless of left, right, and political interests.
      if the objective of these orders was to safeguard US citizens then:
      1) focus should be diverted more towards white supremacists, extremists US citizens, toddles with guns and any american holding a gun given that deaths occurred by these groups are by far more frequent (hence decision is based on fear rather than facts)
      2) The way these decisions were implemented (rushed, no planning, no co-ordination with states and local authorities etc.) have already and will further fuel anger and hate around the world and consequently strengthen extremist behaviors by all possible groups (e..g. muslims and white supremacists) - hence decisions are dangerous
      3) This weekend the ban was applied to a large number of green card holders and legal immigrants - hence you cannot argue that the objective was to safe guard US citizens
      But maybe you can argue that the ultimate objective was different?

    • 2 years ago

      @gigi Those domestic threats cannot be banned. Those are citizens and until they commit a crime they are free. People who want to enter the US do so as privilege- therefore this sovereign state has the right to deny access based on whatever.

      The fact that we can prevent the immigration gives us an imperative to do so. We cannot prevent those domestic threats in the same way.

      Why do you think there was no planning? Are you aware this was being worked out for months. Look at the Giuliani interview where he says they worked on it for a while- in order to make it legal.

      Those holding green cards aren't citizens. Nevertheless, the order makes an exemption for such people. I think it's in the second section or something.

      No, the goal was to protect the homeland from the preventable threat of terrorism via immigration and refugees. Those domestic threats you mentioned are dealt with differently (e.g. FBI investigations, gun safety education and regulations, local police, etc.) than foreign ones.

    • 2 years ago

      @meta_self Bans is not the solution for everything and this was not my suggestion. I purely try to criticize the incentives and subsequent actions of who is supposed to be the leader of free world. I did not suggest banning anything internally as a solution.

      My assumption is the if you want to safeguard homeland then you prioritize threats and invest your resources accordingly (e.g. FBI, CIA, bans etc). I would expect a businessman to know that :-). So based on existing data immigration/ refugees do not pose the most important threat to US (feel free to provide alternative data here), hence this is not the most efficient way to do it.

      Every nation has the right to do whatever they want. correct. I was under the impression that the US represents the land of freedom, opportunity and equal rights. It was also my understanding that according to the Constitution you cannot actually discriminate based on ethnicity, religion, sexual preferences etc. Maybe I'm wrong so please clarify. But when you work hard to make something legal then.. something is wrong... It sounds like you are trying to push changes that are not legal in an obvious way. There are some great examples of "leaders" who have done that successfully, changed the constitution and moved to a more authoritarian model e.g. Putin, Erdogan etc. If this is acceptable for you and the vision for America fair enough.

      Planning....: ? Airports all around the world are a mess, law makers are running around to figure out if this is legal or not, state officials have no idea what to do. If your definition of planning refers to "making a muslim ban look legal" behind the scenes, then even on that front I don't feel they did an amazing job given that law makers are challenging the ban.

      Sure, green cards are not citizens. They are mostly university students, businessmen, scientists, politicians (an Iraqi born British MP was detained) who have the right to be in the US. A right that the US provided to them. If you believe that denying access like that is normal and acceptable fair enough.

      The latest terrorist attack happened in Quebec yesterday...

    • 2 years ago

      @gigi Well the ban is not permanent. The real solution is to create a sufficient vetting system that is "extreme".

      This isn't a contest of domestic vs. foreign threats. Each one is treated different; it doesn't mean no one is working on domestic threats.

      The ban is not based on race. And the US code allows presidents to bar people from entering who pose potential dangers- so the measure itself is lawful.

      It wasn't that they took an illegal activity and made it legal. Rather, they wanted to make sure what they did conformed to existing statues.

      They're not a mess. This is normal when new procedures are in place. Changes aren't instantaneous and require a time for adjustment. For instance those who had green card have already been allowed to enter. You cannot mistake the initial confusion with the lasting impact.

      Right, and there is an exemption for those like students and federal employees.

      Right, we still need the details about that attack, like who did it.

    • 2 years ago

      @meta_self I was hoping that you would address my actual arguments cause I really want to hear the other side of the story rather than what is being presented through these supposed to be press conferences and ultra liberal media. I honestly would love to understand the counter arguments but I feel you are being selective on the points you choose to raise. In any case, I'll let more people jump in!

    • 2 years ago

      @gigi I addressed each point you brought up.

      How could you say I didn't!?

    • 2 years ago

      @meta_self This would be a long debate focusing on the motivation behind these rushed moves, the potential overall impact of the suggested solutions against the defined objectives, the way they were executed and communicated and the subsequent impact :-).

    • 2 years ago

      @gigi Motivations in that sense are black boxes. All we can know is action and results.

      Overall impact hasn't manifested yet. I think it will be fine, no reason to worry.

      Well I'm not sure if there is a better way to figure out a way to properly vet, other then to stop it for a short while and figure things out.

    • 2 years ago

      @meta_self Sorry pls replace motivations with objectives (what they are looking to achieve)! Some impact we can see now and I hope that everyone can make an assessment based on historic data adjusted to current realities and their personal logical reasoning. This how you have debates, no?

    • 2 years ago

      @gigi Their objective is to prevent potential ISIS and other terrorist from using the lax refugee requirements to sneak in like a Trojan horse.

      Like I said, the current list is based on an Obama administration Dept. of Homeland Security assessment of the most dangerous.

      So your two basic claims that (1) the objectives are dangerous and (2) the current list is based on hasty generalizations are incorrect.

      (1) the objectives are normal for security and (2) the list was planned according to stats and facts, not emotions and intolerance.

    • 2 years ago

      @meta_self Hey, so agreed on the objective. I don't think i ever made such claims:
      1) the solution (rushed executive orders for temp ban) and the way it was communicated and implemented is dangerous not the objective
      2) never mentioned the list of countries. this would be debatable after we establish that the solution and the way it was implemented is potentially beneficial. And if we get there, then the argument that a previous administration compiled this list is not something that provides sufficient justification especially given that Trump is representing change
      3) Based on data that we do know, we have not seen a refugee/ immigrant from these conducting terrorists attacks so far. Of course there might be confidential information that we don't know but we cannot base our arguments on unknown facts, right?

    • 2 years ago

      @gigi 1)"rushed" is a inaccurate adjective. I told you that the Giuliani interview shows they had in planned in advanced.

      2) I'm not aruging the validity of the list. Rather, I'm saying that it is not based on intolerance or rash emotions. It was planned in advanced.

      3) Well the case is different for Europe. Do you really want to wait for a potential attack to happen? Isn't better to be safe than sorry, especially when it's our lives who are at risk? Think of it like insurance or having a fire extinguisher.

      This ban is not permanent and will eventually allow those legitimate travelers in the country.

    • 2 years ago

      @meta_self As i said, it would be a long debate...time will tell and I do wish that the damage that has been done so far is reversible and you are right.

    • 2 years ago

      @gigi I'm sure i'm right. And don't worry, this temper tantrum many are having at the airports will subside eventually when the next news fad comes around.

    • 2 years ago

      @meta_self Obama did not create that list for this purpose. He created the list so that people who had traveled to those countries would need to obtain a visa to the US even if they were previously exempt. That is not even CLOSE to what trump did.

      I always hear republicans saying "obama is the one who came up with the list so even he would agree with the ban" and thats ridiculous and an argument that doesnt even begin to address the real issues with the ban

    • 2 years ago

      @lisaopoku The list was made by Obama. This is done to counter the claim that Trump made the list according to his hate and intolerance.

      Again, I'm not arguing about the validity of the ban. It's incomplete, therefore it's unreasonable to judge it ultimately.

  • 2 years ago

    I'll just leave this here: http://imgur.com/gallery/jxPlC

    • 2 years ago

      @anna You know, TRUMP or his team didn't choose the list right? That was done by Obama's team.

      So those correlations are coincidental.

    • 2 years ago

      @meta_self I get that, i just though it was an interesting pic to add here.

      The list shows more about the hypocrisy of U.S. foreign policy rather than Trump's personal views.

    • 2 years ago

      @anna Well that's what this administration wants to change.

      Ending war by ending the warring ISIS which the US created. It's the US's responsibility to end ISIS.

    • 2 years ago

      @meta_self again with that argument! What stopped Trump from adding those more threatening countries to the list then?

    • 2 years ago

      @lisaopoku lol time. They said this isn't the final list. It's a start.