It was the petty little bureaucrats like these that made the gestapo run so smoothly, too.
Right there with you, though certain facets of the current administration wouldn’t classify me as white.
I’m assuming most people in ICE/CBP aren’t there to help people. It’s not really a job where you’re getting cats out of trees or anything. Mostly you’re lording power over people who can’t do anything about it with very few, if any, checks against whatever you decide to do.
TSA… are what you get when you make fast food workers into a police force.
Man, the TSA love roughing me up a little when I travel, and I don’t even look that Hispanic. . .
Sorry I haven’t been around. Valentine’s Day, work, etc. has kept me away. I see I’ve missed a lot. I’ll try to catch up.[quote=“Timex, post:636, topic:128236”]
Sound policy has a rational basis. It is able to say, “We believe that this policy will achieve outcome X via this causal chain of events.”
[/quote]
I think you realize by now that not everyone sees this the same way as you. Some people believe it achieves a desirable outcome. You don’t have to be convinced for that to be the case. You can not like it or disagree with it and that’s fine.
Yes, for whom? [quote=“Timex, post:636, topic:128236”]
No terrorists have come from those countries.
[/quote]Snopes disagrees with you.[quote=“Timex, post:636, topic:128236”]
But you discarded their hardship, even though they are American citizens just like you. You believed that it’s ok for them to have to suffer those hardships, in exchange for the totally irrational promise of this ban, which is akin to magic beans.
[/quote]
I’m not sure which US Citizens you’re referring to. If you’re referring to green card holders, then they are not US Citizens. If they are relatives of US Citizens, then that is a sad situation but I am still okay with it.
Well, the ACA was 20,000 pages long. I don’t think we have to worry about some hidden clause in any of the President’s EOs.
Speech or action? I said actions.
Not sure which post you’re referring to. If there a way to tell this other than a direct quote?
If you say you’re going to do something for a reason and then do that thing… it’s not crazy to assume that you did that thing for that reason.
Hell, the court even cited it. And he’s not going to challenge it.
Yes … but. The (true) thing that Timex perhaps had in mind in this: No one in America has been killed by terrorists from those countries since 1975. (The data coming from right-wing Cato, of all places.)
Note that this is indeed a different statement that “No terrorists have come from those countries,” which is why Snopes has two different pages.
No dude, you aren’t getting it.
I’m not debating whether the outcome is good. I’m GIVING that to you. I’m not even gong to argue that it increasing security isn’t good. (Although I could easily argue why trading liberty for security is not a trade to be taken lightly)
I’m saying that you have no reasonable expectation that it will achieve that goal.
You are unable to formulate a casual chain of events by which this policy achieves that goal.
Sorry, it would have been more accurate for me to have said that no terrorist attacks on US soil have been made by people from those countries.
Come on dude, work with me here. I’ve already said it twice now.
The citizens I’m taking about are US citizens with family affected by this ban.
May you reap what you sow.
Interesting.
[quote]
The presented context was that — if we go back nearly sixteen years — we can find at least a few terrorism-related convictions involving persons from all seven of the countries covered by the proposed entry restriction ordered by President Trump. The omitted context was that persons from many countries that were not on the entry restriction list were involved in vastly more terrorism-related convictions than some of the countries that were on the list.
Surprisingly (or perhaps not) the country of origin for the highest number of persons tracked in the Senate terrorism report was the United States. According to that report, more native-born Americans were convicted of terrorism-related crimes than persons from all seven of the “countries of particular concern” combined.[/quote]
I was addressing the legal argument, not the political one. Here are my thoughts.
Two separate administrations (one Democrat and one Republican) have identified these seven countries as especially dangerous in regards to terrorism. The President of the United States has a duty and an obligation to protect the citizens of the United States from threats both foreign and domestic. To ignore the threat from these countries would be a violation of that duty. Our current vetting system for immigrants and refugees is universally recognized as being inadequate by the intelligence community. If we can prevent a single terrorist from slipping in from one of these countries and killing an American citizen then it is justified and worthwhile. The ban on these seven countries is temporary until a sufficient vetting system can be put into place. The lives and safety of any American is far more important to me than the lives and safety of citizens of other nations.[quote=“Timex, post:656, topic:128236”]
May you reap what you sow.
[/quote]
You say that as if I am in the wrong. Protecting Americans is right and just. The US government giving priority to Americans over non-Americans is proper. I don’t wish non-citizens ill will – quite the opposite. But I won’t apologize for wanting to protect US citizens.
cite?
I picked the first one. Not a damn thing in there about vetting refugees.
Boy am I surprised Royal told someone to use Google rather than read a source or provide one.
I am curious if you have some sources for this. Other sources describe an extremely rigorous vetting process, especially for refugees, e.g.:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/i-went-through-americas-extreme-vetting-214703
It seems implausible that a terrorist could enter the US via the refugee system.
Also from your very own proposed google search:
I’m trying really hard not to just insult you here.
Please, try to read what I’m saying and understand the meaning.
You are unable to define HOW this ban will achieve what you say there. You are saying that the lives and safety of Americans is far more important than other people. But HOW DOES THIS IMPROVE THE LIVES AND SAFETY OF AMERICANS?
That’s the point I’ve been making, over and over again, which you seem incapable to grasp, or willfully ignoring.
If you can explain some logical mechanism by which this ban will increase safety, then explain it.
I’m pretty sure you can’t. But try.
No, I say it because I believe that it’s just for you to experience what you bring upon others. May whatever you cause for others, eventually be done to you and yours.
For good people, such a fate is not a bad one.
This should go well.
[quote]
The Trump administration is considering a proposal to mobilize as many as 100,000 National Guard troops to round up unauthorized immigrants, including millions living nowhere near the Mexico border, according to a draft memo obtained by The Associated Press.
The 11-page document calls for the unprecedented militarization of immigration enforcement as far north as Portland, Oregon, and as far east as New Orleans, Louisiana.
Four states that border on Mexico are included in the proposal — California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas — but it also encompasses seven states contiguous to those four — Oregon, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana.[/quote]
[quote]
Also dated Jan. 25, the draft memo says participating troops would be authorized “to perform the functions of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension and detention of aliens in the United States.” It describes how the troops would be activated under a revived state-federal partnership program, and states that personnel would be authorized to conduct searches and identify and arrest any unauthorized immigrants.[/quote]