Trump &#x27;to sign orders restricting refugees from Muslim nations&#x27;

Original post by Hydeman

Policymakers can't please everyone. They work with probabilities on a cost-benefit basis (with some ideology thrown in, of course) - it's just not possible to be one hundred percent fair to everybody, one hundred percent of the time. Individuals who lose out as a result understandably resent it, but it is what it is. We live in the reality that is, not the one we wish existed.

For what it's worth I consider this policy futile (especially since it notably excludes Pakistan and Afghanistan) but I think it's important to oppose it for the right reasons, i.e. most acts of terror in the west are committed by those born and raised here.

This policy is likely to turn into something of a legal disaster area for Trump.

First of all it seems to affect people with existing rights granted by the US government not merely people seeking an indulgence or favour from it. That means there are going to be plaintiffs with standing to sue.

Secondly Trump has been plainly transparent about his motives which will prevent his lawyers advancing more subtle (and legal) justifications for the policies adopted.

There is little doubt that the US government can distinguish between nationals of different countries in deciding who to let in, but it is unlikely that those decisions can be made on a whim. Does Trump have the rational evidence base to justify this list and only this list of countries in a way that does not offend Constitutional and legal prohibitions on discrimination?

Where is the policy going? Ultimately "extreme vetting" will also have to be rational. The policy is really a fig leaf to provide a quasi-ban on Muslims. It is likely that the US government already asks all relevant questions and checks all relevant available data sets. Unless Trump aims to get more intelligence against which people can be vetted, it is likely that "extreme vetting" will mean no more than demanding that applicants produce documentation that it is unreasonable to expect them to obtain.

Reply 63

username878267

15

Original post by Hydeman

Legalised gun ownership isn't just another policy - it's part of their constitution, as interpreted by their judiciary. Don't tell me you're now in favour of enacting constitutional change by simple majority/plurality. :facepalm2:

Saying something should be allowed because it's in the constitution is a circular argument. 'x should be allowed because x is allowed'.

I find the idea that a country should be bound by something written hundreds of yeara ago to be bizarre. I much prefer the British constitution which is allowed to gradually develop and change over time.

Reply 64

nulli tertius

Original post by Bornblue

Saying something should be allowed because it's in the constitution is a circular argument. 'x should be allowed because x is allowed'.

I find the idea that a country should be bound by something written hundreds of yeara ago to be bizarre. I much prefer the British constitution which is allowed to gradually develop and change over time.

Of course the virtual impossibility of amending the Constitution (because the thresholds are so high) is the cause of much of the USA's illegal immigration problem.

Most nations of the world have abandoned the old idea of ius soli; that you become a citizen of a country merely by being born in it. The USA is unable to do so. This makes it very difficult to expel illegal immigrant families or even to avoid extending the visas of legal short term immigrants because at least one child is commonly a US citizen.

Reply 65

MildredMalone

16

Original post by StrawbAri

The wall is going to be very very expensive venture. I am not sure congress will approve. Tbh the money could have gone to more security personnel at borders. A more feasible and cost effective option.

This just shows how people dodn't actually listen to what Trump says. The money is going to come from remittences sent back to Mexico, and (something else I forget).

Original post by ThatOldGuy

Trump is actually advocating 'Extreme vetting' of people from these countries.

In practical terms, that means no refugees as they are all-but-impossible to vet.

Weell, yeah. I doubt the people who assaulted kids and women in swimming pools had links to extremists, they're just acting in the way their culture allowed.

Reply 66

Original post by Ladbants

Build the wall
Build it tall
Deport them all

Triggered much?

Retreating to your poem safe spaces?

Reply 67

Original post by joecphillips

A little thing called the constitution.

Why do you get to force your will onto others?

And France has strict gun laws.

How is that relevant? They didn't have guns and hijacked the plane like in most hijackings

You mean an amendment to the constitution, lobbied for by the gun lobby who want to make money?

A great "right". Such a universal human right in fact that so many other countries have amended their constitution to allow people to, oh wait, nope.

Reply 68

Original post by astutehirstute

It is amusing to see the outrage on the BBC and the Guardian for this measure. From Merkel and Hollande too.

What those in the liberal bubble, what the metropolitan elite fail to grasp is just HOW popular this policy of Trump's is. They still don't get it. How stupid can you be????

All over the UK, France, Germany, people are thinking, now that is a politician with balls. Good on him. Why don't we have politicians like that?

Noting much will happen here, but both France and Germany are going to hold elections pretty soon. And the liberal elite are playing into the hands of popular politicians.

The BBC has absolutely no clue that this is the case, but Muslim refugees are about as popular as a bucket of cold sick in the western world. That is the truth. What Trump is doing, others will have to emulate.

Or they aren't going to be in power for much longer.

And yet he has 40% approval rate. Soooo popular :biggrin:

Maybe Trump will feel safer once he has made America into a white safe space where only crazy white high school or college student run amok. Much better than brown Muslims.

Reply 69

DRAIN THE SWAMP

with er, Goldman Sachs executive. They will know what to do.

Reply 70

bj27

Original post by Robby2312

The Constitution isn't some sacred thing you know.It can be changed.Indeed that's the whole point of the amendment's.The second amendment states that citizens can own guns as part of a "well regulated militia". How many American citizens are part of a militia exactly? And the situation was different back then.They had just fought for independence from Britain.You can't take that amendment without its historical context.There is no longer a need for Americans to own guns.Certainly not military grade guns.Some people go on about it being in case the government turns nasty.Well the government has the entire firepower of the US military at its disposal ,a few rifles will make no difference.

I don't see how it's controversial to say that if potential terrorists have easier access to powerful guns then there are more likely to be terror attacks and worse terror attacks at that.I'm not forcing my will onto others.If they want to allow the sale of powerful weapons and suffer the consequences,they can.I'm just saying it would be better if less people could get their hands on guns with ease.And this doesn't just apply to terrorism but also to school shootings and other incidents.

Obama spent 8 years trying to regulate gun access and how did that work out?

Chicago's meant to have strict gun laws and look how that's working out.

It's easier said than done and large parts of the countries want to keep their guns, if you ban guns they'll just hide them.

Reply 71

Rakas21

He has not gone far enough so far as i am concerned. These people are an ethno-cultural threat and i see no advantage to their admittance.

A step in the right direction though.

Reply 72

Reformed

14

Original post by Palmyra

Lets analyse the 9/11 hijackers:

15/19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia
2/19 were from the UAE
Then 1/19 each from Egypt and Lebanon

Quite impressive that not one of these 4 countries are included in Trump's ban...

indeed - i feel there might have been a general worldwide nod of agreement if it could be seen that his policy was a genuine aknowledgment of the islamist influence on global terorrism. but the fact that the biggest producers of islamist doctrine and sacrificial pawns like pakistan, saudi. nigeria emirates and qatar have been ignored in this ban is stark indicator that has less to do with terrorism and more to do with an agressive stance toward Iran and its allies - who trump deems more of a capable threat

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 73

astutehirstute

11

Original post by Rakas21

He has not gone far enough so far as i am concerned. These people are an ethno-cultural threat and i see no advantage to their admittance.

A step in the right direction though.

Agreed.

These are just the tentative first steps in what will be the defining struggle of our era.

Reply 74

faloodeh

18

Original post by Robby2312

I notice Saudi Arabia is not on that list.Wonder why? Wouldn't want to annoy them would we?

Why is Saudi Arabia never included? Even on the VWP :s-smilie:

"Citizens or nationals of the following countries* are currently eligible to travel to the United States under the VWP, unless citizens of one of these countries are also a national of Iraq, Iran, Syria, or Sudan"

Reply 75

Reformed

14

Original post by queen-bee

Places that America has helped turn into third world hellholes. God forbid they ever try to seek asylum in the USA tho,right?

if you ignore the general simplistic right -wing rhetoric, it isnt necessarrily with 'third world immigrants' seeing as america has thrived for centuries importing ( various major DJ CEOS are now of south american and asian subcontient ethnicity). the issue that is headlining is the immigrants whoose generationally ingrained indoctrination thanks to islamist controlled regimes has prevented most of specifically these immgrants from progressing integrating and making sound contributions to more more advanced societies. ultimatly until the islamic world plays successful cathch up with the rest of the world- this problem will exist. but there seems little appetite for muslims to progress intellectually and modernise, at the expense of lessening reliance on islamist doctrine in their political and social affairs

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 76

BrainyBengali

16

Reply 77

queen-bee

19

Original post by Reformed

if you ignore the general simplistic right -wing rhetoric, it isnt necessarrily with 'third world immigrants' seeing as america has thrived for centuries importing ( various major DJ CEOS are now of south american and asian subcontient ethnicity). the issue that is headlining is the immigrants whoose generationally ingrained indoctrination thanks to islamist controlled regimes has prevented most of specifically these immgrants from progressing integrating and making sound contributions to more more advanced societies. ultimatly until the islamic world plays successful cathch up with the rest of the world- this problem will exist. but there seems little appetite for muslims to progress intellectually and modernise, at the expense of lessening reliance on islamist doctrine in their political and social affairs

WHY isn't Saudi Arabia on there?? Oh America still wants to protect its interests.

Anyway,look what they've done to places like Iraq,constant bombing said for 13 years and arming/funding terrorists in the ME,In then case of Syria and Libya ,in the name of democracy,least we can do is provide a safe place for the victims of their actions,innocent men,women and children caught up in all of this.

Reply 78

queen-bee

19

Original post by Rakas21

He has not gone far enough so far as i am concerned. These people are an ethno-cultural threat and i see no advantage to their admittance.

A step in the right direction though.

Oh please,like Arabs haven't contributed to anything in society.

Reply 79

Zargabaath