Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Refugee ban

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DOR
    replied
    Originally posted by troung View Post
    The refugees at issue are safe in their camps, it's cheaper to keep them there, and safer for us. They are owed nothing.
    Bullshit.

    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/0...180746859.html
    http://storymaps.esri.com/stories/2016/refugee-camps/

    https://placesjournal.org/article/ca...5FAaAvHy8P8HAQ
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...e-dying-slowly

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by Chunder View Post
    I read it, it is piece of work that is designed to reinforce one's right wing point of view. I seen something similar from Fareez Z. from CNN on FB that reinforces what the left wants to hear.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    An uncoordinated executive order that left a complete mess. Found out 24 hours later that actually British and Canadian dual citizens were considered ok guys... for now. In the meantime, Green card holders were left in limbo. And this team in the White House that cannot even manage rolling out a simple progra wants to manage a trillion dollar economy. These are the clowns that was repel and replace O-care. Was listening to an interview, critics were saying how it would been good to have a heads-up on the bans, the Dr. Goebbels from the other side, were saying: "well, had we moved the program to Monday and advised airlines in advance, than the terrorist would have accelerated their plan". Shows the level of stupidity and ignorance behind that statement.

    I don't know what Flynn and Steve Bahnon are up to, but whatever their plans are probably not pretty and have a feeling they are going to ruin the world, ... or Make America Great Again, depending on your political orientation.

    That being said, I fundamentally don't have a problem with refugee ban and dont find that racist at all. It is inhumane but it is every nation choice to decide what they need to do, depending on their resources and their generosity. What I do consider racism is the action toward dual citizens and their own Green cardholders. Just because someone has darker skin, doesn't mean that he/she is about eat you.

    By the way, great job in screwing the Iraqis, I hear they are really happy.
    Disappointed with Mattis though.
    Last edited by xerxes; 31 Jan 17,, 01:27.

    Leave a comment:


  • tbm3fan
    replied
    Originally posted by troung View Post
    Abdul Razak Ali Artan, thankfully didn't kill his victims
    Omar Mateen born in New Hyde Park, New York did manage to kill 49 victims...

    Leave a comment:


  • dan m
    replied
    I'm not convinced this refugee ban actually does anything to keep the US safe. If anyone has evidence to change my opinion on it, I'd be more than happy to take a look at it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doktor
    replied
    Originally posted by GVChamp View Post
    Household appliances are sort of needed to run my household. Refugees are people we accept out of the goodness of our hearts. They aren't the same.

    I might have agreed that the risk was trivial 10 years ago, but not today. Banning refugees is a no-brainer. It's also infinitely preferable to letting in a million of them.
    Meh, they kept coming you liked it or not.

    Leave a comment:


  • troung
    replied
    The refugees at issue are safe in their camps, it's cheaper to keep them there, and safer for us. They are owed nothing.

    Your statement hardly repudiates the point of the article though does it? A
    Yes it does.
    Last edited by troung; 30 Jan 17,, 17:15.

    Leave a comment:


  • astralis
    replied
    Banning refugees is a no-brainer. It's also infinitely preferable to letting in a million of them.
    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/histor...ies-180957324/

    n the summer of 1942, the SS Drottningholm set sail carrying hundreds of desperate Jewish refugees, en route to New York City from Sweden. Among them was Herbert Karl Friedrich Bahr, a 28-year-old from Germany, who was also seeking entry to the United States. When he arrived, he told the same story as his fellow passengers: As a victim of persecution, he wanted asylum from Nazi violence.

    But during a meticulous interview process that involved five separate government agencies, Bahr's story began to unravel. Days later, the FBI accused Bahr of being a Nazi spy. They said the Gestapo had given him $7,000 to steal American industrial secrets—and that he'd posed as a refugee in order to sneak into the country unnoticed. His case was rushed to trial, and the prosecution called for the death penalty.

    What Bahr didn’t know, or perhaps didn’t mind, was that his story would be used as an excuse to deny visas to thousands of Jews fleeing the horrors of the Nazi regime....

    The American ambassador to France, William Bullitt, made the unsubstantiated statement that France fell in 1940 partly because of a vast network of spying refugees. “More than one-half the spies captured doing actual military spy work against the French Army were refugees from Germany,” he said. “Do you believe there are no Nazi and Communist agents of this sort in America?”

    Immigration restrictions actually tightened as the refugee crisis worsened. Wartime measures demanded special scrutiny of anyone with relatives in Nazi territories—even relatives in concentration camps. At a press conference, President Roosevelt repeated the unproven claims from his advisers that some Jewish refugees had been coerced to spy for the Nazis. “Not all of them are voluntary spies,” Roosevelt said. “It is rather a horrible story, but in some of the other countries that refugees out of Germany have gone to, especially Jewish refugees, they found a number of definitely proven spies.”

    Leave a comment:


  • GVChamp
    replied
    Household appliances are sort of needed to run my household. Refugees are people we accept out of the goodness of our hearts. They aren't the same.

    I might have agreed that the risk was trivial 10 years ago, but not today. Banning refugees is a no-brainer. It's also infinitely preferable to letting in a million of them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Monash
    replied
    Originally posted by troung View Post
    Abdul Razak Ali Artan, thankfully didn't kill his victims
    Your statement hardly repudiates the point of the article though does it? At its worst the policy is a massive overreaction to a non-existent threat (Americans are in more danger from their household appliances than they are from 'Moslem terrorists') and at best it's misdirected, not even targeting those countries with the worse records for tolerating /promoting extremism. I mean if your going to pull out a gun and shoot something at least at shoot the right target for Gods sake.

    Leave a comment:


  • troung
    replied
    Abdul Razak Ali Artan, thankfully didn't kill his victims

    Leave a comment:


  • DOR
    replied
    The Economist, Jan 28, 2017

    "In the past 40 years there has been not a single fatal terrorist attack in America carried out by anyone belonging to the seven nationalities targeted by the order. Excluding the 9/11 attacks, whose Egyptian, Emirati, Lebanese and Saudi Arabian executioners would not have been covered by Mr Trump’s ban, America has suffered hardly any terrorism perpetrated by immigrants. According to a study by Alex Nowrasteh for the Cato Institute, the risk of an American being killed in a terrorist attack by a refugee in a given year is one in 3.6bn."

    and,

    "Worsening the damage, he also signalled, in an interview with a Christian television channel, that the ban would not apply to Christians. Syrian Christians, claimed Mr Trump, were “horribly treated” by his predecessor. 'If you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible,' he said. 'I thought it was very, very unfair. So we are going to help them.' This was not merely incendiary but untrue: last year America accepted 37,521 Christian refugees and 38,901 Muslims."

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...ddled-masses-0

    Leave a comment:


  • tbm3fan
    replied
    Originally posted by Chunder View Post
    You're kidding, right. Aussie sense of humor I guess.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chunder
    replied
    Originally posted by Doktor View Post
    Still doesn't explain KSA, UAE, Pakistan waiver.

    I have seen a meme on FB, with analysis from Cato Institute saying the citizens from the banned countries killed 0 Americans on US soil, while those on the waiver amassed to 3000 (the methodology is somewhat weird, but the point is still there).
    All those countries are U.S. Allies. DOR is incorrect, as the papers that can be bothered doing their job pointed out, and latest on American Thinker, it clearly isn't a ban on Muslims - and has done before. More often than not by Democrat Presidents.

    Just disappointing so many outlets have reverted to the propoganda of so many autocratic regimes. I'd swear it's as if they want to be so blatantly incorrect - Trump couldn't possibly ask for a better cheerleader.

    Fake News with Alternative Democrat facts around every corner.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doktor
    replied
    Originally posted by DOR View Post
    The only reason The Trumpet has put in place restrictions on visitors to the US from specific countries is because it would be too easy to overturn restrictions on the basis of religion. It also would lay bare the hypocrisy of the so-called evangelical rightwing.
    Still doesn't explain KSA, UAE, Pakistan waiver.

    I have seen a meme on FB, with analysis from Cato Institute saying the citizens from the banned countries killed 0 Americans on US soil, while those on the waiver amassed to 3000 (the methodology is somewhat weird, but the point is still there).

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X