OK, I'm going to go there.

[Been Jammin]

Read this entire thread. People wanting to come to the US should be willing to submit any information we need to make sure they are coming here for the right reasons. Anyone who can't satisfy that requirement should not inter.

Why is that wrong?

Are you suggesting that this is not already happening (or wasn't 2 weeks ago)? If so, how do you know? You seem to be convinced that we were just opening our ports/border/airports and letting anyone, who asked, come into the country. I'm sure you know that is inaccurate.

 

[Headhunter]

Agree 100%. When we were finalizing my wife's Visa at the Embassy in London there was a lady at the counter and she was from Iran or Iraq, can't remember, but she said she had worked for the government and they kept asking her what was her job and she kept saying she could not tell them. This went on for 30 minutes, the attendant at the counter finally just said she was denied and bashed the stamp down on her paperwork. I could not believe she actually thought they would give it to her

That is extreme vetting. Common sense, if we don't know who you are, your country can't vouch for you and we have no way to know who you are or what your intentions are you can't come in. Pretty damn simple.

Trump is being trashed unmercifully for this very policy.

 

[Headhunter]

Are you suggesting that this is not already happening (or wasn't 2 weeks ago)? If so, how do you know? You seem to be convinced that we were just opening our ports/border/airports and letting anyone, who asked, come into the country. I'm sure you know that is inaccurate.

We are allowing people from countries that have no data base of who these people are, do you really think the seven countries with total dysfunction can give us the identity of people and can assure us that the people coming here are not coming here to harm us? Very naive.

 

[Been Jammin]

That is extreme vetting. Common sense, if we don't know who you are, your country can't vouch for you and we have no way to know who you are or what your intentions are you can't come in. Pretty damn simple.

Trump is being trashed unmercifully for this very policy.

No.

Trump is being trashed for rolling out his policy without anticipating a slew of potential complications/problems that were completely preventable.

 

[okstatefan1]

"Because that's the way we've always done it" is literally the worst excuse to keep doing things the same way we've always done it.

 

[MegaPoke]

So, Abdul Razak Ali Artan came to this country from Pakistan, which is not one of the 7 countries. The other 2 guys were Kenyan born U.S. citizens, unless I am not mistaken.

That is the best you can come with as to why Trump's XO is logical and makes sense?

I will see your 3 terrorists and raise you over 3 million refugees that have entered the country since 1980. I'm still not convinced that we currently have a problem that needs fixing. Certainly not one that needs to be fixed TODAY, rather than 2 weeks from now. It defies logic, pure and simple.

There may be information you and I aren't privy to that would make it more logical. Maybe not. But maybe.

 

[Medic007]

His basic argument appears to be the same as Trump's. "We have a serious safety issue because I say we have a serious safety issue." "We have to close this enormous loophole immediately, because if we wait another day the results will be on par with 9/11." "Anyone who doesn't like it can just go ahead and F off"

Not even close. Not even in the same infinite universe. In fact, your response seems to be rooted in hysterics that make no sense and aren't supported by a microscopic particle of fact. What part of new administration reviewing policies in place and making adjustments is so hard to get? It's exactly what he said he would do.

Did Obama immediately reverse Bush policies with little review/rollout time? We both know the answer. He was cranking out executive orders his first day on the job too. Why couldn't he wait? Well, because he was elected President and in his own words, he was "fulfilling campaign promises."

You can keep looking for the boogeyman, but there isn't one. Offer one credible and logical downside besides "ham-fisted" and I'd be more than happy to discuss my thoughts.

 

[Headhunter]

I'm for going with not letting anyone in who might potentially go to a Christmas party and kill fourteen people. If that means that some people who aren't dangerous don't get to come to America then I'm okay with it.

If that's discrimination then so be it, easy to be generous when it's not your loved one who is slaughtered.

 

[Been Jammin]

Not even close. Not even in the same infinite universe. In fact, your response seems to be rooted in hysterics that make no sense and aren't supported by a microscopic particle of fact. What part of new administration reviewing policies in place and making adjustments is so hard to get? It's exactly what he said he would do.

Did Obama immediately reverse Bush policies with little review/rollout time? We both know the answer. He was cranking out executive orders his first day on the job too. Why couldn't he wait? Well, because he was elected President and in his own words, he was "fulfilling campaign promises."

You can keep looking for the boogeyman, but there isn't one. Offer one credible and logical downside besides "ham-fisted" and I'd be more than happy to discuss my thoughts.

So, your argument is that Trump is the victim of the media/left wing? He has done nothing different than any present before him, but there is a vendetta/conspiracy against him? Do, I have that right?

If so, I would counter that (as I have said all throughout this thread), I would expect the President (especially one that is a proven successful businessman) to say, "OK, this is what I want to do and what the country needs. It is a big deal and has many moving parts. Let's take a few days to iron out any kinks that we can find before I sign the order".

The issues that have arisen since he signed the XO are not a function of the media/left (OK, I'm sure that some of them actually are since there are two sides to every story). They are a function of him, and his advisors, pulling the trigger before they took time to aim the gun.

 

[Been Jammin]

I'm for going with not letting anyone in who might potentially go to a Christmas party and kill fourteen people. If that means that some people who aren't dangerous don't get to come to America then I'm okay with it.

If that's discrimination then so be it, easy to be generous when it's not your loved one who is slaughtered.

Well, then we probably shouldn't let anyone into the country. They might just give birth to a child like Dylann Roof or Adam Lanza or Tamerlan Tsarnaev. I'm sure the families of the people they killed wish that their parents/grandparents/great grandparents had not been allowed into the U.S.

 

[Medic007]

So, your argument is that Trump is the victim of the media/left wing? He has done nothing different than any present before him, but there is a vendetta/conspiracy against him? Do, I have that right?

If so, I would counter that (as I have said all throughout this thread), I would expect the President (especially one that is a proven successful businessman) to say, "OK, this is what I want to do and what the country needs. It is a big deal and has many moving parts. Let's take a few days to iron out any kinks that we can find before I sign the order".

The issues that have arisen since he signed the XO are not a function of the media/left (OK, I'm sure that some of them actually are since there are two sides to every story). They are a function of him, and his advisors, pulling the trigger before they took time to aim the gun.

What? I made zero contention that Trump was the victim of anything. Not a slight at you, but that post makes no sense.

I do appreciate and enjoy the banter though. You should post regularly here, IMHO.

 

[Headhunter]

Well, then we probably shouldn't let anyone into the country. They might just give birth to a child like Dylann Roof or Adam Lanza or Tamerlan Tsarnaev. I'm sure the families of the people they killed wish that their parents/grandparents/great grandparents had not been allowed into the U.S.

The correlation of natural born people who do evil and people who we should screen before they come here is totally ridiculous.

Let anyone in, because they are no more dangerous than people who already live here is stupid.

 

[Been Jammin]

The correlation of natural born people who do evil and people who we should screen before they come here is totally ridiculous.

Let anyone in, because they are no more dangerous than people who already live here is stupid.

Over 3 million refugees have entered the country since 1980. How many of them have committed terrorist acts on our soil? Now, ask yourself how many of those 3 million have become productive American citizens? How many have children that love this country as much as you and I? How many of those children excel at mathematics, science, engineering, music, etc?

My point was that to keep out a group of people who "might" do us harm is silly. I threw out a silly comparison to make a point. How about we do our best to keep out the bad people while allowing the good to come here and contribute positively to society while also improving their lot in life? Will some bad people find a way in? Probably, eventually. But, if they can't find a way in from 7 countries on a list, there are 188 countries in the world that they can use as a way station before they make their way here.

I think most Americans would agree that the answer is vetting the people who want to come here and trying to determine who to turn away. That has already been happening. Does the system need to be improved? Maybe, maybe not.

 

[HighStickHarry]

I cannot believe this is all over a 90 day pause

 

[Medic007]

I think most Americans would agree that the answer is vetting the people who want to come here and trying to determine who to turn away. That has already been happening. Does the system need to be improved? Maybe, maybe not.

Hence the pause while the system is evaluated by the new Trump administration. Not an illogical concept when you assume the responsibility for the safety and security of a country in a fight against Islamic terrorism, especially when you made a commitment to do it.

 

[CBradSmith]

Exactly @HighStickHarry

@Been Jammin it's not due to any aligning of beliefs. Check the political compass thread for validation. It's that some people (@Medic007 ) understand the context and nuance of allowing a sufficient measure of time to pass before becoming unhinged.

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

Again, what is the downside of making sure the vetting process is adequate and correcting deficiencies found? The only one that has been brought up is virtue signalling Islamaphobia.

Hurt feelings obviously.

 

[davidallen]

Been, you may be right about the 7 countries. From what country did the female murderess at San Bernadine come? And the "refugee" that attacked students at Ohio State. Where did he come from? I don't know the answers.

Yeah and the BG Massacre - where did those people come from????

 

[MegaPoke]

Yeah and the BG Massacre - where did those people come from????

From one of 57 states.

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

From one of 57 states.

 

[Medic007]

Yeah and the BG Massacre - where did those people come from????

 

[Medic007]

Yeah and the BG Massacre - where did those people come from????

The Bowling Green terrorists came to the US as refugees from Iraq, and were subsequently arrested for plotting to kill US troops in Iraq and sending money and weapons to terrorists. But that's OK, right? Since they didn't do their terrorism shit in the US prior to getting caught doing terrorist shit?

Monkey see, monkey do...

 

[Been Jammin]

Hence the pause while the system is evaluated by the new Trump administration. Not an illogical concept when you assume the responsibility for the safety and security of a country in a fight against Islamic terrorism, especially when you made a commitment to do it.

Trump Tweet:
I have instructed Homeland Security to check people coming into our country VERY CAREFULLY. The courts are making the job very difficult!

Do you actually believe that Homeland Security was not checking people VERY CAREFULLY before Trump took office?

Trump Tweet:
Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!

You seem like a reasonable guy. Surely you can see that this is extreme hyperbole.?

I keep going back to the concept that Trump wants us to believe that there is this terrible problem and terrorists are entering this country on a daily basis. Yet, the evidence clearly shows that this is not the case. Is our current system foolproof? No. You have listed a handful of individuals who made it into this country and perpetrated acts of terror or plotted to do so. But, do you actually believe that there is such a thing as a foolproof system?

Can our vetting system be upgraded to a more extreme vetting system? Maybe.

Does it make sense to suspend travel while you evaluate the system and look for upgrades? Not if said suspension is going to cause chaos and result in our president disparaging a federal judge on Twitter. This situation was entirely unnecessary, poorly planned, and poorly implemented.

 

[Medic007]

Does it make sense to suspend travel while you evaluate the system and look for upgrades? Not if said suspension is going to cause chaos and result in our president disparaging a federal judge on Twitter. This situation was entirely unnecessary, poorly planned, and poorly implemented.

Chaos? Really? Poorly planned? Maybe. Poorly implemented? I'd say so. Unnecessary? Based on what? Your feelings?

The FBI currently has more than 1,000 ongoing investigations regarding terror in the US. How many are coming in? Tens, hundreds, thousands? Do you know the answer? Apparently some are. It only takes one. We've already seen what a well coordinated effort can do. If the vetting process is robust enough, great, carry on. If it needs to be made more robust, then make it so.

Again, it is completely reasonable and logical to pause momentarily while the current process is reviewed by the new administration. Is it politically correct? I don't care. Is it inhumane? Nope. Has it actually caused more than some inconvenience and a bunch of bitching? Not from all of the evidence I've seen.

It seems eight years of the mantra that Islamic terrorists have nothing to do with Islam has created a very real naivety about the capability and desire of the terrorists to do harm to Americans. I'm glad the new administration doesn't seem to have bought in.

 

[CowboyJD]

Nope. But we have been lucky. We've all sacrificed liberties so that the FBI can investigate and deal with terrorism. If I can bear some inconvenience for our safety, so can people who wish to travel/immigrate/get placed here.

I gave two concrete examples of evidence of ignorance on the terrorist part for not having a bigger body count.

I hate that you're seemingly so willing to accept the sacrifice of liberties you mentioned.....

Of course, I'm -6.3 on that Libertarian/Authoritarian political compass thing.....the closest to "anarchy" on this board so far. Maybe I'm the one out of whack.

 

[Been Jammin]

Has it actually caused more than some inconvenience and a bunch of bitching? Not from all of the evidence I've seen.

Dozens of tech companies, including giants like Apple, Google, and Uber, are siding with Washington state as it fights President Donald Trump's ban on refugees and travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States.

The companies filed briefs late Sunday with a federal appellate court saying the Trump executive order hurts their businesses by making it harder to recruit employees. The companies also said the travel ban would prompt businesses to build operations outside the United States.
___________________________________
Lawyers for Washington state and Minnesota have told a federal appellate court it would "unleash chaos again" if it lifted an order temporarily halting President Donald Trump's ban on refugees and travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States.
___________________________________


In briefs filed early Monday morning with the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Washington state and Minnesota said Trump's travel ban harmed residents, businesses and universities and was unconstitutional.
___________________________________
The order triggered protests and a multitude of legal challenges around the country and blocked numerous college students, researchers and others from entering the U.S.
______________________________________

Iranian researcher Nima Enayati, a Ph.D. candidate at a university in Milan, was prevented from boarding a flight to the U.S. on Jan. 30. He had a visa to conduct research on robotic surgery at Stanford University in California.

_______________________________________

Nazanin Zinouri was taken off a plane in Dubai days after the travel ban went into effect. Zinouri, a legal U.S. resident, had traveled to Iran last month to visit family.

_________________________________________

At the Irvine supermarket, 45-year-old Iranian American Mary Far said she hasn't returned to Iran in two decades. She was hoping to go this summer to visit her brother and sister, whom she hasn't seen since she left the country. But with the travel ban, she isn't sure she'll make the trip.
_________________________________________

I'm sure that it seems like "just some (minor) inconvenience" to a lot of people who are not affected by it. But, it is significantly more than that to the people who are affected by it, many of them U.S. citizens.

Once again, it all could have been much smoother by doing some due diligence before signing the XO. We wouldn't be debating this if the plan to study the current vetting processes was thought through prior to implementation.

 

[Medic007]

Dozens of tech companies, including giants like Apple, Google, and Uber, are siding with Washington state as it fights President Donald Trump's ban on refugees and travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States.

The companies filed briefs late Sunday with a federal appellate court saying the Trump executive order hurts their businesses by making it harder to recruit employees. The companies also said the travel ban would prompt businesses to build operations outside the United States.
___________________________________
Lawyers for Washington state and Minnesota have told a federal appellate court it would "unleash chaos again" if it lifted an order temporarily halting President Donald Trump's ban on refugees and travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States.
___________________________________


In briefs filed early Monday morning with the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Washington state and Minnesota said Trump's travel ban harmed residents, businesses and universities and was unconstitutional.
___________________________________
The order triggered protests and a multitude of legal challenges around the country and blocked numerous college students, researchers and others from entering the U.S.
______________________________________

Iranian researcher Nima Enayati, a Ph.D. candidate at a university in Milan, was prevented from boarding a flight to the U.S. on Jan. 30. He had a visa to conduct research on robotic surgery at Stanford University in California.

_______________________________________

Nazanin Zinouri was taken off a plane in Dubai days after the travel ban went into effect. Zinouri, a legal U.S. resident, had traveled to Iran last month to visit family.

_________________________________________

At the Irvine supermarket, 45-year-old Iranian American Mary Far said she hasn't returned to Iran in two decades. She was hoping to go this summer to visit her brother and sister, whom she hasn't seen since she left the country. But with the travel ban, she isn't sure she'll make the trip.
_________________________________________

I'm sure that it seems like "just some (minor) inconvenience" to a lot of people who are not affected by it. But, it is significantly more than that to the people who are affected by it, many of them U.S. citizens.

Once again, it all could have been much smoother by doing some due diligence before signing the XO. We wouldn't be debating this if the plan to study the current vetting processes was thought through prior to implementation.

I couldn't care less about tech giants in Washington state. Using trigger words like "chaos" doesn't mean it actually is. You listed instances of inconvenience. Anything that caused actual physical harm? I'm operating from a realist perspective. When it comes to safety, I'm not much for emotion or touchy feely stuff.

It has been reported that Obama halted/slowed down/banned processing new Iraqi refugees when the two terrorist Iraqi refugees were discovered. Part of that report also indicated that two Iraqi men who had worked for US troops were killed because they couldn't get their application processed because of the slow down/halt/ban on new applications, including emergency ones. Because "government sources" was the only thing listed as a source, I don't put 100% faith in the story, but it was from ABC and generally where there is smoke there's something resembling fire.

It has also been reported that the US had to slow down/halt/ban the processing of Iraqi refugees in June 2014 because of ISIS. They evacuated the folks who did the interviews for their safety. This resulted in a backlog of over 57,000 Iraqi refugee applications. The personnel were returned in April 2015 to resume work.

Why did I post these two Obama era things? No, not to criticize him one bit. I agree with both slow downs/halts/bans because they were necessary for the safety of Americans. There is a small list of things I agree with risking American lives for, sometimes very begrudgingly, and rushing or inadequate refugee processing isn't one of them. The "ban" is temporary. Things will resume once policies and processes have been reviewed by the new administration and improved if needed. Temporary inconvenience to make sure Americans are safe is something I agree with and one of the reasons I voted for Trump.

 

[squeak]

If he did insult the judge or court publicly then that is wrong . Is never acceptable

I'd say what he did to the Supreme Court in his 2010 state of the union address was insulting.

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

I honestly don't think this is about terrorism. This is about refugees. Europe has them and the US for the most part doesn't want anything to do with them.

With that being said the president has the power to do this. I expect the SC to hold up that part of the argument at least.

If you wanted to back the terror argument what has not been discussed would be how many attacks where thwarted but not told to the US population.

 

[Alpha Poke]

Who did it hurt? Nobody

Are there legit reasons that you aren't addressing? Yes, fighters flowing out of the Syrian theatre to their home countries.

The dicks in Silicon Valley are crying why?

A) They really really care about humanity.

B) or it hurts their bottom line

If you answered A you need to do some homework, it's all about maximizing profit.

It's really this easy, the people giving you all your talking points are worried about their pocket books and exploiting the easily exploitable for their gain. All it takes is following the message back to the source and looking at what those dicks are actually doing.

 

[Medic007]

I hate that you're seemingly so willing to accept the sacrifice of liberties you mentioned.....

Of course, I'm -6.3 on that Libertarian/Authoritarian political compass thing.....the closest to "anarchy" on this board so far. Maybe I'm the one out of whack.

I wouldn't say I'm willing.

 

[Medic007]

If you wanted to back the terror argument what has not been discussed would be how many attacks where thwarted but not told to the US population.

There have been quite a few attacks stopped in the planning stages. The good thing about our current inhouse jihadists is that they seem to have little patience, a level of knowledge not close enough to proficient, and are gullible enough to involve the FBI.

Importing some battle hardened and charismatic jihadists can change that in a hurry.

 

[CowboyJD]

I wouldn't say I'm willing.

Certainly didn't seem too bothered.

 

[Been Jammin]

Are there legit reasons that you aren't addressing? Yes, fighters flowing out of the Syrian theatre to their home countries

Do you honestly believe that any of them would be able to get into the U.S. over the course of the next 90 days under the current (pre-Trump) vetting system? Because Trump wants you to believe that they are "pouring in". Which brings us back to the question of why we have not had more of a problem with non-home grown terrorism since 9-11.

"Extreme Vetting" can be implemented without a travel ban. If a travel ban is deemed necessary, it can be implemented without a lot of the headaches and drama that has played out over the course of the last week. It just takes a bit more foresight, planning, and training of those expected to enforce it.

 

[Alpha Poke]

It only takes one.

If it was your responsibility to protect Americans would you roll the dice or would you lock it down until you had a full grasp of the situation?

It's an action deemed necessary by a number of presidents. I've never thought it was a bad idea for the president to be looking out for us by keeping bad people out of our country.

I really don't know how you can't be looking outside of our borders and seeing the price being paid by people exactly like you in places like Sweden, Germany, England, Holland, Belgium, France and not be terrified? The dicks that give the left all their talking points want the exact same thing to happen in our borders. They make their money on chaos. Soros is always the dick at the craps table playing the don't pass side and rigging it through manipulation of idiots.

 

[Been Jammin]

The dicks that give the left all their talking points want the exact same thing to happen in our borders. They make their money on chaos.

You really believe this?

 

[Alpha Poke]

Where do you think the narrative comes from?

 

[Been Jammin]

Where do you think the narrative comes from?

Which narrative?

 

[CowboyJD]

It only takes one.

If it was your responsibility to protect Americans would you roll the dice or would you lock it down until you had a full grasp of the situation?

It's an action deemed necessary by a number of presidents. I've never thought it was a bad idea for the president to be looking out for us by keeping bad people out of our country.

I really don't know how you can't be looking outside of our borders and seeing the price being paid by people exactly like you in places like Sweden, Germany, England, Holland, Belgium, France and not be terrified? The dicks that give the left all their talking points want the exact same thing to happen in our borders. They make their money on chaos. Soros is always the dick at the craps table playing the don't pass side and rigging it through manipulation of idiots.

Only a fair comparison if European refugee screening is as strenuous as our present standards.

Everything I've read indicates they are significantly less strenuous than even what is presently in place here.

 

[Been Jammin]

Only a fair comparison if European refugee screening is as strenuous as our present standards.

Everything I've read indicates they are significantly less strenuous than even what is presently in place here.

The evidence supports this.