Trump signs Muslim ban
- Thread starter lbodel
- Start date
I think some Christian organizations put it best today...
From leaders of the National Association of Evangelicals:
"Most refugees from the Middle East are women and children who have suffered the assaults of ISIS terrorists and civil war," NAE President Leith Anderson said in a statement opposing Trump's order. "We have the opportunity to rescue, help, and bless some of the world's most oppressed and vulnerable families."
___________
"The question for the American Christian is: Will we speak out on behalf of those who are running from the very terror that we are rightly trying to put an end to?" Arbeiter asked. "People who are running from Mosul and Aleppo and a thousand other places on fire?"
"Would we be willing to accept giving up a one in three billion chance of our safety in order to make room for them?" he continued. "Or would we say, 'I am not willing to give up even the smallest fraction of my safety to welcome people who have been vetted very carefully, who have been proven as a remarkable population of people. Will I not make room for them?'"
From leaders of the National Association of Evangelicals:
"Most refugees from the Middle East are women and children who have suffered the assaults of ISIS terrorists and civil war," NAE President Leith Anderson said in a statement opposing Trump's order. "We have the opportunity to rescue, help, and bless some of the world's most oppressed and vulnerable families."
___________
"The question for the American Christian is: Will we speak out on behalf of those who are running from the very terror that we are rightly trying to put an end to?" Arbeiter asked. "People who are running from Mosul and Aleppo and a thousand other places on fire?"
"Would we be willing to accept giving up a one in three billion chance of our safety in order to make room for them?" he continued. "Or would we say, 'I am not willing to give up even the smallest fraction of my safety to welcome people who have been vetted very carefully, who have been proven as a remarkable population of people. Will I not make room for them?'"
Yep, one of the truely great historical aspects of our nation is our handling of refugees from the wars we have fought, supported, encouraged... We have tried as best we could to give them a place here.
If you haven't seen it on Netflix, Last Days in Vietnam, is a good example of the not so often documented side of the greatness of the US military, and the efforts of Americans to help and protect reguees fleeing what we were fighting.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-immigration-block-muslim-ban-234205
It is for 120 days
It is not all Muslims
It is for 7 countries
The US brings in more refugees/immigrants legally year after year than any other country
I suggest everyone step back from the edge.
It is for 120 days
It is not all Muslims
It is for 7 countries
The US brings in more refugees/immigrants legally year after year than any other country
I suggest everyone step back from the edge.
Great educational post Bruce. So many don't find the actual facts and instead get their news from Chris Matthews, Maddow, or Sheppard Smith. Personally, I'd much rather have at least some assurance that the woman or child (or man) we let in and covet isn't going to blow my grand kids to hell and back.
I don't think the liberals want to hear about this. They are probably organizing another protest to show their displeasure.
BTW I hardly heard a peep from the Chicago news about the March yesterday in Washington about the abortion issue. They were supporting Trump so a 15 second mention was all they reported.
Convenient the only middle east countries not included are ones he has business ties to.
Welcome to Nazi America.
The Chicago news outlets along with the national news spent a long time covering and interviewing women in their march. That though was a march against the Trump regime.
The ironic thing is that the ban cites 9/11, yet none of the 9/11 terrorists came from any of these countries. How logical! Almost all terrorist attacks since 9/11 in this country have come from US citizens that were radicalized mainly on the internet.
But yes, let's screw over people who are truly in need. Just like how we gave a middle finger to the Jews in the 1930s.
We can vet people who want to claim refugee status in Guam or Guantanimo could we not? We can remove folks from the war zone who want out. Those who past muster could then be safely placed in the US.
It maximizes safety for all of those involved.
It maximizes safety for all of those involved.
Violating the US Constitution? Priceless!
By the way, it's not just a ban on refugees. It's a travel ban on people from these countries. So a student from one of those countries that at Purdue right now - can't go home and come back to Purdue.
And how exactly is it not a Muslim ban when it's a ban on 7 majority-Muslim countries, with exceptions given to minority religions (which Trump flat out said in an interview - prioritizing Christians) - not a ban on Muslims? Those are the only people being banned based on that math. That's a Muslim ban.
Do you realize the current system in place? The US vets refugees more than any other country in the world. It takes 1-3 years to go through the vetting process. It's not like you show up one day, apply to be a refugee then you get a gold star and a flight to the US after you sign your name.
This order is also NOT just refugees. It's basically a travel ban. For example, a doctor in one of these countries that is coming to the US for a medical? Banned, whether they have a visa or not, which requires approval.
Last edited:
Here's some more facts for you:
The chance of an American being murdered in a terrorist attack caused by a refugee is 1 in 3.64 billion per year.
You have a great chance of being hit by lightning than a terror attack carried out by a refugee. So maybe you should stop going outside any time it is raining.
You are 3000 times more likely to be killed by a fellow American with a gun than a terror attack carried out by a refugee.
But hey, why would we care about our children and guns!? Pffffft.
It's not perfect, even if there could be a way to streamline vetting. But it would get people over there out of harms way much quicker. And it could assuage the fears of a lot of people over here.
Here's another fact for you. On 9/11, 3,000 Americans were killed by Muslin jihadists. They either were burned alive or jumped and fell hundreds of feet to avoid roasting.
The jihadists did it to gain an houri of 72 virgins. They believe that if they kill infidels, Allah will reward them with lots of hair pie.
And NONE of them were from any of the countries on Trump's list!
I'd really encourage you to read about how the vetting process works. First off, there are over 5 million Syrian refugees. The U.S. admitted only around 13,000 last year. If it wasn't such a serious humanitarian crisis, it would actually be funny how big of a deal people are making about 13,000 out of over 5 million that the US accepts a year. Of those 13,000 - 60% are children. The US accepts hardly any single men of 'combat age'. To give you a comparison, the US accepted 125,000 Vietnamese after the Vietnam War.
Here's an overview of the vetting process. Because the US accepts so few and are scrutinized (including field interviews - which means they go to others to corroborate interviews) it does not make sense to send them to Guantanamo or elsewhere during the vetting process. There are massive refugee camps outside of Syria.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/how-does-the-refugee-vetting-process-work/
What do you propose we do about those who want to blow you kids and mine to hell and back? It's a known fact they have stated they've infiltrated the refugees. I'm willing to make 'em wait a few weeks just to be a bit surer
And again, you're more likely to be murdered by someone who was sold a gun without a mental health background check. But you aren't really concerned about that, right?
There's always a risk with anything. For decades, we've been taking in tens of thousands of refugees that have literally no hope because of the conditions they were involuntarily subjected to.
It's never been a partisan issue because it has been part of our American values.
This is nothing but fear mongering. Just like how there's millions of people illegally - only for Democrats. It's simply fear mongering to create distrust. Just like how the media is the opposition party. It's simply fear mongering to create distrust. Just like how a wall is needed to protect us from illegal immigrants. It's simply fear mongering to create a distrust of a certain type of people.
Dear God. It's not all one blanket worldwide system.
The US admits 13,000 out of millions of refugees. We aren't just letting anyone in. There are other countries that have let in TONS without doing much checking, like Turkey for example. Some of the European countries have also let in a large number without a significant background check - I personally think there should be better screening by some of them. Other countries are also different because there is an ocean between us. It is much easier to travel within the Middle East/Europe.
See my post above. The system is not lax. Less than 2% are 'combat age' men. 60% are children.
And again, if you want to play the "fear" game, there's a lot of things in this country that are bigger problems in terms of violence against others. But you don't seem to care about that.
Last edited:
And also, to be clear, this 'ban' is not just Syrian refugees or refugees. It's anyone from any of those countries cannot come here. Right now, even green card holders who are legal US residents are being detained. So this means a Purdue University student cannot leave the US right now and know if they can come back. US companies, particularly the tech sector, are very upset.
And this was all done with NO warning. I mean, argue for or against it - but it was completely haphazardly put into place.
You are assuming a lot about me. I'm for bringing folks in to this country, but I want them vetted to the max. We know they've come across our borders, but neither Bush nor Obama wanted to tighten them up for one reason or another. As for mentally ill and guns....I'm for screening there as well. That's why I support background checks and some sort of system if someone has been declared mentally ill by a doctor that goes into a base and that person can't buy a gun just like some folks can't drive cars.
First, I'm a Christian. Second I'm a member of the NRA. Third, I'm a conservative. Fourth, there is nothing in the the US constitution that states we have to take anyone in. Not one single soul. Fifth, what about the rapes, robberies, assaults that have occurred in Europe by those same refugees you're suggesting we let in.
Last edited:
Will have to check that out some time.
Fort Bragg/Fayettville, and Raleigh NC, has a large contingent of Montagnards. Montagnards are great fighters and fought well with the CIA/SF Groups in Vietnam. They are mountain people in Vietnam.
For how much they did for the US war effort and how much they sacrificed, it is one group that the USA did not do enough for. The SF community at Fort Bragg to this day still reaches out to them somewhat to help them out. Some really interesting/crazy stories among them. Listened to a group of them tell how they fought North Vietnam til about 1980 all the time wondering where the USA was at. Finally they officially surrendered around 1990, making it to a refugee camp in Cambodia, where they turned in weapons and evantualy made it to USA..
No, it is not a Muslim ban. The refugee ban applies to all refugees for 120 days. Other wise it would be illegal.
The 90 day travel ban applies to the seven aforementioned countries.
And prioritizing refugees based on religion, ethnic background, other demographics is legal. That in large part is why they are refugees to begin with.
I agree with the judge in the linked cnn article though-people with already approved refugee applications, green card holders, people en route, and people with visas should be able to travel to/from those countries. IMO, that part of it is as absurd as the wall he is building. If an individual does not already have travel papers-wait the 90/120 days and start the new vetting process.
Like he said during his campaign, he stated it would be temporary. We will see.
More so than refugees, I am more concerned with people that claim asylum. Similar to the 2,000 or so that were in Australia that Australia would not take but Obama said he would. Of course that was nixed. Asylum seekers typically just show up with little if anything known about them. A refugee, has typically already been in a refugee camp for a few years and there should be somewhat of an idea who they are. Main question with Syrian refugee camps is that ISIS/gangs/Sunnis are controlling them, keeping Christians out, so they have some bad people in there.
http://www.newsweek.com/us-bars-christian-not-muslim-refugees-syria-497494
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-executive-order-immigration-reaction/
Last edited:
One third of Syrian refugees in Germany have fake IDs....
https://www.rt.com/news/316570-eu-false-syrian-refugees/
The odds are spectacularly against that happening in the status quo. Defeating terrorism is a long game that will take a generation to stamp out. It's never going away with propaganda-inspiring moves like this.
Last edited:
Do you have another source that corroborates that claim? RT is a notorious shill for the Putin government. Further, if true, do you have any evidence it's still happening (your link is 1.5 years old) and that those 1 in 3 were disproportionately likely to commit terrorism?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ports-forgery-experts-admit-t-spot-fakes.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/11/fake-syrian-passports/416445/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...n-Iraq-Libya-Syria-warn-French-officials.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...fake-syrian-passports/?utm_term=.bd40b4abe13e
Thanks for the additional links and apologies for not doing more research on my end.
Do you have evidence that this has been happening in the US? And that these refugees are more likely to commit terrorism?
There is plenty of evidence that jihadist attacks in Europe were committed by those who entered the EU with fake Syrian passports. However the mainstrean news media in the US often do not publish this information.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/paris-stadium-attacker-entered-europe-via-greece-1447698583
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34832512
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...369c80822c2_story.html?utm_term=.dd19a6b24ff8
https://www.rt.com/news/361399-terrorists-refugees-hungary-intelligence/
That doesn't really make a case that this is a problem. There are also stories indicating that refugees have helped stop attacks.
What's undeniable is that accepting refugees saves human lives (i.e. the refugees).
I'm willing to hear arguments in support of requiring a certain amount of assimilation and integration, but to cite a fear of death is just nonsense. You might as well never leave your house because there are countless more likely ways to die than by terrorism.
My God you are naive. Not a problem?
Then we also have the No Go Zones. Although liberals deny their existance, 60 Minutes visited one in Sweden.
And the Swedish police themselves have declared these 55 No Go Zones...
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/713032/Sweden-chaos-no-go-zones-increased-police-lose-control
Name-calling is not an effective debate tactic and I'd appreciate a more civil tone. I clearly stated above that I'm open to discussions of better assimilation and integration (something, btw, the US excels at, particularly with its Muslim communities).
It's not surprising that cultural ghettos have been established and there are frustrated and possibly violent people within that population subset, given a general inability to find work. You can clearly see in the video that local residents fought back against the gang, as well.
The way right-leaning sites describe these, however, you'd expect stories of beheadings and torture on a daily basis.
This phenomenon has happened with every single immigrant group that has ever made their way to the US. Would you have advocated for a temporary ban on travel from Ireland in the early part of the 20th century?
Two thoughts about this discussion: 1. I was in Paris in spring 2016 and there were "no go" zones there and 2. If you go to the US gov't website on refugees you will understand how they decide where to put (resettle) refugees. Their policies about resettlement - intentionally or not create pockets of refugees from the same areas - for example, Dearborn, Mich has the largest population of Arab Americans, twin cities, Minn has the largest number of Somali refugees, etc - so your chances of being hurt/killed are based more on where you live than on some broad statistic for the entire country.
That premise is somewhat accurate but not totally. One assimilated into our society whether in Minny or Michigan, they are free to travel within this country. And we all know that there are terrorists already here.
Where were all the outcries when Obama halted immigration for six months?
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...onths/&usg=AFQjCNG9b3kXwM7_RPVDiJcIvbMGSguHoQ
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...onths/&usg=AFQjCNG9b3kXwM7_RPVDiJcIvbMGSguHoQ
Latest posts
-
Example #346 that liberalism is a disease....- Latest: Boilermaker03
-
-
Can you imagine Paint walking to midcourt to spew on Clingan
- Latest: GeddyHoosier
-
