I gave DJT a chance, now I'm out

Statement Regarding Recent Executive Order Concerning Extreme Vetting



“America is a proud nation of immigrants and we will continue to show compassion to those fleeing oppression, but we will do so while protecting our own citizens and border. America has always been the land of the free and home of the brave.

We will keep it free and keep it safe, as the media knows, but refuses to say. My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months. The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror. To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting.

This is not about religion - this is about terror and keeping our country safe. There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order. We will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days.

I have tremendous feeling for the people involved in this horrific humanitarian crisis in Syria. My first priority will always be to protect and serve our country, but as President I will find ways to help all those who are suffering.”
 
thethe said:
Legal residents do not have the same rights as citizens.
Click to expand...

They generally do -- while they are here -- but are subject to standards of inadmissibility (that citizens aren't) whenever they leave the country and attempt to re-enter. One of these standards is "violation of US immigration laws" -- which I guess is where the issue is here.
 
thethe said:
Statement Regarding Recent Executive Order Concerning Extreme Vetting

“America is a proud nation of immigrants and we will continue to show compassion to those fleeing oppression, but we will do so while protecting our own citizens and border. America has always been the land of the free and home of the brave.

We will keep it free and keep it safe, as the media knows, but refuses to say. My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months. The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror. To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting.

This is not about religion - this is about terror and keeping our country safe. There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order. We will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days.

I have tremendous feeling for the people involved in this horrific humanitarian crisis in Syria. My first priority will always be to protect and serve our country, but as President I will find ways to help all those who are suffering.”
Click to expand...

I guess the first question on my mind is: why not put this statement out there in tandem with the EO?
 
Hawk said:
They generally do -- while they are here -- but are subject to standards of inadmissibility (that citizens aren't) whenever they leave the country and attempt to re-enter. One of these standards is "violation of US immigration laws" -- which I guess is where the issue is here.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Hawk said:
They generally do -- while they are here -- but are subject to standards of inadmissibility (that citizens aren't) whenever they leave the country and attempt to re-enter. One of these standards is "violation of US immigration laws" -- which I guess is where the issue is here.
Click to expand...

I mean, that is pretty objectively a ****ty way to treat such people, regardless of the legal validity of doing so.
 
Hawk said:
I guess the first question on my mind is: why not put this statement out there in tandem with the EO?
Click to expand...

Great question. Seems like we are all going to have to get used to this administration doing things differently...for better and for worse.
 
Metaphysicist said:
This doesn't really need to be a hypothetical. Burmese Buddhists have been doing this to Rohingya Muslims for a while now.

I personally have no problem giving preferential treatment to targeted populations. But in the case of Syria, I think it is difficult to claim that any of the applicants are "undeserving."
Click to expand...

Yes, I knew it wasn't a hypothetical and that's the reason I suggested it.

Yes, all the applicants were/are deserving. So, I lament that so few who have been received thus far have been Christians.
 
BedellBrave said:
Yes, I knew it wasn't a hypothetical and that's the reason I suggested it.

Yes, all the applicants were/are deserving. So, I lament that so few who have been received thus far have been Christians.
Click to expand...

I thought you were the one who literally posted the explanation for the discrepancy, which seemingly had very little to do with any policy Obama enacted. I think we all agree that some form of background check should be done, and if Christian refugees cannot follow that process, I agree we should look for solutions, but it hardly seems like a ban.
 
nsacpi said:
At its core there is a defensible part of The Donald's decision on immigration and refugees: that there be a freeze on entrants from some parts of the world or certain countries due to the conditions there.

At the same time there are multiple levels where what he did is objectionable.

1) Administratively. This was rushed through apparently without the parts of government responsible for its implementation having a chance to review it. The result has been chaos. And possibly tragedy and suffering, as for example the case of the Christian family that landed in Philadelphia but ended up taking a plane back to Qatar.

2) Policy details. It should have been made clear from the start that this did not apply to legal permanent residents. I also happen to believe that the vetting procedures for the seven affected countries are already sufficiently rigorous, but this is something reasonable people can disagree on.

3) Morally. I don't think this is included in the executive order, but Trump has said he specifically wants to help Christians in Syria. Now, there are circumstances where it is morally right to focus your efforts to help specific religious minorities who are being persecuted. But the situation in Syria is one where all groups are suffering, more or less equally. In those circumstances, I think it is morally wrong to single out one group as the one you are going to focus your efforts on.
Click to expand...

Agree with your assessment, other than on point 3. With no context, what you state is reasonable. The problem has been the virtual ban that has been on them in the way the previous administration handled things. To take strides to see that they aren't effectively barred consideration seems very reasonable.
 
mqt said:
I feel like the big point you seem to be missing is that violent tendencies don't likely come from the religion but the environment one is in. And before you say anything, I also think that the threat is overstated to tremendous levels.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why there is a persistent attempt by Westerners like yourself to go out of your way to ignore the texts of Islam, and how they are generally interpreted, and the biography and example of Muhammad, and the history of Muslim conquests, and the stated goals of Muslims. It boggles my mind that there is this willful desire to try to explain away things. In ways, I think it is actually patronizing.
 
BedellBrave said:
I'm not sure why there is a persistent attempt by Westerners like yourself to go out of your way to ignore the texts of Islam, and how they are generally interpreted, and the biography and example of Muhammad, and the history of Muslim conquests, and the stated goals of Muslims. It boggles my mind that there is this willful desire to try to explain away things. In ways, I think it is actually patronizing.
Click to expand...

This approach by the left is dangerous. I can't for the life of me understand the refusal to acknowledge the elephant in the room...Islam.
 
There's a naive assumption by too many Westerners (including Neo-cons) that everybody must really, deep down, yearn for Western Enlightenment ideals. I've got news for them. They don't.
 
I hope Trump starts rounding up and arresting all the illegal immigrants, politicians who obstruct justice by setting policy to not comply with federal law, and cops who refuse to enforce immigration laws. These people are all breaking laws. I am told I am a criminal for smoking weed and that there is no excuse for breaking the law. The cops breaking down my door to arrest me in my home for smoking a joint are seen as heroes. Where are these people who say we have to respect the law and imprison law breakers regardless of the morality of the law now. If I deserve prison for a victimless crime then so do these people. Dont arbitrarily apply the law then tell me cops dont have a choice but to enforce the drug laws on me. If I am not justified in using violence to defend my basic rights then neither are these people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaw
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top