Immigration ban and backlash

[Baiter]

I'm curios if Trumps 90 day hold and review process included those countries if you'd support it?  Wouldn't that just open him further to the charge that "this is really just a muslim ban?"  Are you really asking him to look at banning those countries or are you creating a straw man?

Trump spent a year campaigning about doing a Muslim ban, and in the actual ban he went as far as to exclude those from minority religions in those countries.  As the judges ruled, there is overwhelming evidence that this order was directed at Muslims, regardless of the inclusion of other countries.  The missing countries are the real eye opener, right?  We can be fairly certain there would be political ramifications from those countries that Trump et al. doesn't want to deal with.

[Baiter]

[Mamushka]

How many deaths have been caused by terrorist attacks from the Travel Ban countries since 9/11?  I am pretty sure it is zero.

Got it, you have no problem that we have 72 convicted terrorist from those countries. Let's keep letting them flow in until we get a competent one.

[WannaTheater]

Got it.  We'll just sweep the fact that many of the post 9/11 terrorist attacks were committed by US citizens born in the US, and blame the 7 countries for what may happen in the future.  I am not sure how we can improve on "Zero Deaths caused by terrorists from those countries."  Seems like the system may have been working already, before Trump decided to fix it with his muslim ban.... er "travel restriction."

I wouldn't go fishing in a pond that nobody has ever seen a fish in.  I would go to one that is stocked. 
Happy fishin'!

[Yosho]

More to the point, would you go fishing in a pond you knew was polluted?  That's really what we're talking about... countries that are failed/hostile states that have widespread terrorism - or do you deny that there is a lot of terrorism associated with each of these countries?

[kbvette]

More to the point, would you go fishng in a pond you knew was polluted?  That's really what we're talking about... countries that are failed/hostile states that have widespread terrorism - or do you deny that there is terrorism associated with each of these countries?

                                 Thanks for the segue......did you know that the Trump administration is "hell bent" on dismantling the EPA!
 Say bye bye to unpolluted ponds,clean air and water.Remember Love Canal and the numerous EPA Super fund clean up sites ? Our tax dollars
 paid for them and continues to do so.

[briefcase]

                                 Thanks for the segue......did you know that the Trump administration is "hell bent" on dismantling the EPA!
 Say bye bye to unpolluted ponds,clean air and water.Remember Love Canal and the numerous EPA Super fund clean up sites ? Our tax dollars
 paid for them and continues to do so.

Speaking of Super, did you know that Trump rigged the Super Bowl so that the Patriots would win? 

[Baiter]

Got it, you have no problem that we have 72 convicted terrorist from those countries. Let's keep letting them flow in until we get a competent one.

It's a bit ludicrous to justify banning 212 million people over 72 non-lethal convictions, particularly when the justification for the action leaves out the countries where the 9/11 terrorists actually came from.  It's like the Iraq war justification all over again. 

By the way, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you, pm me for details.

[k7]

Speaking of Super, did you know that Trump rigged the Super Bowl so that the Patriots would win? 

ya...how else can you explain that Atlanta beat down for 3.25 quarters?

fuck the bradys. fakest football team in NFL history. just look at how they became "the greatest team"...after 9/11.

if you don't think football, basketball, and baseball are rigged for "sales"...I present  to you...boxing.

[WannaTheater]

I am still looking for some sort of confirmation on the claims of 72 arrests.... Hannity isn't talking about it... pretty much nobody, NOT EVEN TRUMP, is talking about it.  He calls attention to nordstrom dropping his daughters foreign made goods, but 72 supposed arrests from his terrorist factory countries are not Trump tweet worthy?  His chance to say "F-you courts, press, see, I was right, told you so, told you so," and he passes?  Yeah....  right....

Researching a bit more about the "center for immigration studies," where this "study" originated, produces some interesting results.  Words like, Fake News, Hate Group, etc.
They are about "immigration reform," i.e. reducing it.

Here is a bit more information on the source of this study:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/center-for-immigration-studies-cis/

Sorry, I am calling Bullsh!t here.

[Yosho]

It's a bit ludicrous to justify banning 212 million people over 72 non-lethal convictions, particularly when the justification for the action leaves out the countries where the 9/11 terrorists actually came from.  It's like the Iraq war justification all over again. 

By the way, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you, pm me for details.

So what is the magic number then before it would become too much of an risk?  Where is the benifit to our country when there is even minimal risk?  If given the choice between an immigrant from country A where there is a very slight risk of terrorism and one from country B where there is no risk, why is this even a decision?

I WANT immigration, but we don't NEED immigration.  So why take the risk with countries that we can't do a proper background check, especially when Billions of people from other countries are available that come from societies without a religious and cultural civil war against western values?  That simply makes no sense to me.  Why are Muslims from these countries so special that we need more of them at the expense of say... Chinese or Guatemalans who wouldn't pose the same risk?

[Baiter]

So what is the magic number then before it would become too much of an risk?  Where is the benifit to our country when there is even minimal risk?  If given the choice between an immigrant from country A where there is a very slight risk of terrorism and one from country B where there is no risk, why is this even a decision?

I WANT immigration, but we don't NEED immigration.  So why take the risk with countries that we can't do a proper background check, especially when Billions of people from other countries are available that come from societies without a religious and cultural civil war against western values?  That simply makes no sense to me.  Why are Muslims from these countries so special that we need more of them at the expense of say... Chinese or Guatemalans who wouldn't pose the same risk?

What you are stating is the opposite of freedom... One might  think we are in the new Christian crusades, except that Bishops and The Pope himself have criticized the wall and this ban.  The White House wouldn't even give justification to the federal courts for this appeal, so they just flat out denied it, calling it unconstitutional.

So what really the motive behind this, because it's definitely not terrorism.  In 16 years we have *zero* deaths from terrorists from the banned countries, yet Central Florida has about 3200 homicides in that time.  Should we quarantine Central Florida from the rest of the world to save lives?  Taken to the extreme it sounds like an attempt to quarantining all travel for everyone everywhere based on unspecified fears, but I can't believe you think that, so I'd like to hear more of your thoughts as to the real motives.

[briefcase]

So what really the motive behind this, because it's definitely not terrorism.  In 16 years we have *zero* deaths from terrorists from the banned countries, yet Central Florida has about 3200 homicides in that time.  Should we quarantine Central Florida from the rest of the world to save lives?  Taken to the extreme it sounds like an attempt to quarantining all travel for everyone everywhere based on unspecified fears, but I can't believe you think that, so I'd like to hear more of your thoughts as to the real motives.

More people died by homicide in 1941 than were killed in Pearl Harbor. Should we not have entered World War II? 

[Baiter]

More people died by homicide in 1941 than were killed in Pearl Harbor. Should we not have entered World War II? 

Both situations involve significant actual homicides, which is not the case with the 7 country muslim ban.  Keep trying though.

[briefcase]

Both situations involve significant actual homicides, which is not the case with the 7 country muslim ban.  Keep trying though.

You're right; we should wait until some innocent Americans die first before we do anything about it.