U.S. Politics

[StefanAVFC]

1 minute ago, villakram said:

Maybe, but there are significant legal hurdles. The fact that these are the same 7 countries that last terms congress and the last president designated as naughty should clue you into that. Also, re-read what I wrote and ask if those countries will provide that data? We didn't ban them, but they won't tell us XYZ about the very bad people, think of the children.... oh, and Rudy has been spouting this type of stuff for well over 10 years.

If it makes you feel good to call me naive, ok,

I only wish the Trump team was.

I don't think you're naive generally, I felt your statement about the 'ban', motives, length etc was a tad.

If what Guiliani was saying was false and made Trump look bad, he'd be the first to whinge about it.

Instead he's on national TV with him praising him up.

[snowychap]

26 minutes ago, villakram said:

Yup, hence my insertion of the qualification. But remember the US has threatened many countries with exclusion from their immigration program when enforcing new travel regs since 9/11.

If the list is longer, so what. The plan as announced is to draw up more stringent "vetting" requirements, e.g., full biometrics and I suspect access to more info. from specific countries. Note, that they don't need this from the UK as they already have it or can trivially get it. Is this fair, no. But, what is fair in an immigration landscape where the wealthy can purchase passports from many many countries. 

Your qualification is about the timeline of a small section of the order made, i.e. one step.

I don't agree that it's just about more stringent 'vetting' requirements. It looks to me like it's about using these seven countries as the benchmark for coming up with a comprehensive and publicly supported way of prohibiting immigration from countries beyond those seven.

Edit: I may well be wrong about the benchmarking and I hope I am.

Edited January 31, 2017 by snowychap

[snowychap]

7 minutes ago, villakram said:

they won't tell us XYZ about the very bad people, think of the children. Some countries will trivially provide this info., e.g., SA as the Princes couldn't give a rats arse about their people. Will poorer countries be able to? Will Iran be willing to... hmmm

As you say, do some countries have the capacity to? I think that was pretty much Gen Kelly's point about the seven on the list.

But it's not just about 'the very bad people', is it? It's about all of the people. What proportion of all of those people are 'the very bad people'?

[villakram]

3 minutes ago, snowychap said:

As you say, do some countries have the capacity to? I think that was pretty much Gen Kelly's point about the seven on the list.

But it's not just about 'the very bad people', is it? It's about all of the people. What proportion of all of those people are 'the very bad people'?

Who cares is their answer I suspect... this is not just about religion, but also class. The US wants to get the good people to migrate, and only the good people. One can imagine how that is defined.

Edited January 31, 2017 by villakram

[snowychap]

11 minutes ago, villakram said:

Who cares is their answer I suspect... this is not just about religion, but also class. The US wants to get the good people to migrate, and only the good people. One can imagine how that is defined.

I wasn't asking for their answer, I was asking for your answer as you were the one who made reference to 'the very bad people'.

Edit: Language is such an interesting tool.

Edited January 31, 2017 by snowychap

[villakram]

2 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I wasn't asking for their answer, I was asking for your answer as you were the one who made reference to 'the very bad people'.

Edit: Language is such an interesting tool.

Depends on what XYZ is? Depends on who is deciding what XYZ is? I wasn't claiming knowledge just trying to illustrate how they are going about doing things. Tools everywhere 

[HanoiVillan]

The WaPo has a new article up (which I can't link directly without subscribing), but it contains an interesting line:

This is Not Good. 

[snowychap]

20 minutes ago, villakram said:

Depends on what XYZ is? Depends on who is deciding what XYZ is? I wasn't claiming knowledge just trying to illustrate how they are going about doing things. Tools everywhere 

I'm not sure where it's been all that illustrative, I'm afraid.

Edited January 31, 2017 by snowychap

[StefanAVFC]

This is wonderful and ridiculous all in one.

 

[Keyblade]

Haha wow

[villakram]

Survey says: Thumbs up for Trumps immigration policy (57% vs 33%, 10% undecided).

"Most voters approve of President Trump’s temporary halt to refugees and visitors from several Middle Eastern and African countries until the government can do a better job of keeping out individuals who are terrorist threats."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/january_2017/most_support_temporary_ban_on_newcomers_from_terrorist_havens

Edited February 1, 2017 by villakram

[maqroll]

Homicides in the United States last year committed by "Islamic Terrorists" accounted for less than 0.5/% of all US homicides. Clearly the major threat to Americans are....other Americans....usually with guns...the notable exceptions to this rule are the 9/11 hijackers, almost all of whom came from countries NOT presently banned by Trump. Why were Saudi Arabia and Egypt not included in the ban? Because Trump has business interests in those countries. Convenient, right? Anyone else see a problem? 

 

KINELL

 

 

 

 

[snowychap]

3 hours ago, villakram said:

Survey says: Thumbs up for Trumps immigration policy (57% vs 33%, 10% undecided).

"Most voters approve of President Trump’s temporary halt to refugees and visitors from several Middle Eastern and African countries until the government can do a better job of keeping out individuals who are terrorist threats."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/january_2017/most_support_temporary_ban_on_newcomers_from_terrorist_havens

No.

Survey says: thumbs up for the hypothetical scenario that they've put to 1,000 likely voters.

Edit: There's probably still a thumbs up for the policy but it would be nice if they asked them about it.

Edited February 1, 2017 by snowychap

[HanoiVillan]

6 hours ago, villakram said:

Survey says: Thumbs up for Trumps immigration policy (57% vs 33%, 10% undecided).

"Most voters approve of President Trump’s temporary halt to refugees and visitors from several Middle Eastern and African countries until the government can do a better job of keeping out individuals who are terrorist threats."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/january_2017/most_support_temporary_ban_on_newcomers_from_terrorist_havens

Just to be accurate, Rasmussen Reports are a famously Republican-leaning pollster who have a 'house bias' of several points to Republican politicians and positions. They can't be regarded as accurate barometers of public opinion, except in their trendlines.

(This doesn't mean that the policy isn't popular, or at least more popular than unpopular. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the policy is popular, because refugees aren't). 

[snowychap]

On 30/01/2017 at 20:39, Keyblade said:

Really? I read a CBC (who are very reputable) report confirming the man was merely a witness. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-city-mosque-gun-shots-1.3957686

Fox News deletes false Québec shooting tweet after Canadian PM's office steps in

Quote

The office of the Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau has forced Fox News to apologise and retract a “false and misleading” tweet that inaccurately described the suspect in the Québec City mosque shooting as a man of Moroccan origin.

Kate Purchase, the director of communications for the prime minister’s office, sent a letter to Fox News objecting to misinformation it had put out after the attack on the Québec City Islamic cultural center.

Six people were fatally shot in the back as they prayed at the mosque on Sunday. Another 19 people were wounded. On Tuesday two people remained in critical condition.

Shortly after the attack police had arrested two men, one of whom was a Moroccan-born Québecer. By midday on Monday, police had clarified that only one was a suspect, and they had released the Moroccan-born man – who was now being treated as a witness – without charge.

Fox News later tweeted on Monday afternoon – after the police clarification – that the suspect in the attack was of Moroccan origin.

The Fox News tweet made no mention of the other man arrested, French-Canadian Alexandre Bissonnette, who now faces six charges of first-degree murder and five of attempted murder. Those who know Bissonnette have described him as pro-Donald Trump, anti-immigration and sympathetic to the far right.

Hours after it was made clear that Bissonnette was the only suspect in the case, the “false and misleading” tweet was still on the Fox News Twitter account and remained in circulation, said Purchase.

While the Fox News story linked to the tweet had been corrected, the erroneous tweet had been retweeted more than 900 times and had racked up 1,600 likes.

In a letter to a top official at the network, Purchase asked Fox News to retract or update the tweet to reflect the suspect’s identity as a 27-year-old French-Canadian.

“These tweets by Fox News dishonour the memory of the six victims and their families by spreading misinformation, playing identity politics and perpetuating fear and division within our communities,” she wrote.

The letter continued: “We need to remain focused on keeping our communities safe and united instead of trying to build walls and scapegoat communities. To paint terrorists with a broad brush that extends to all Muslims is not just ignorant – it is irresponsible.

“If we allow individuals and organizations to succeed by scaring people, we do not actually end up any safer,” she added. “Fear does not make us safer. It makes us weaker. Ramping up fear and closing our borders is not a solution.”

Within hours, Fox News apologised for the error. “FoxNews.com initially corrected the misreported information with a tweet and an update to the story on Monday. The earlier tweets have now been deleted,” Refet Kaplan, the managing director at FoxNews.com, said in a statement. “We regret the error.”

Moroccan-born Québecer Mohamed Belkhadir has described how he spent the night in custody after a misunderstanding.

He said he had been clearing snow off the steps outside the mosque when he heard gunshots. When the noise stopped, he called 911 and entered the mosque, he said: “It was a reflex. You can’t leave people when they’re in need.”

He said he was giving first aid to a friend when he caught a glimpse of a man with a gun. “I didn’t know it was a police officer – I thought it was the gunman who had returned.”

Belkhadir said he bolted from the scene. Only when police ordered him to the ground did he realise what was going on. He was released hours later, but by then his identity had become synonymous with the attacks.

 

[PieFacE]

America should be banning guns before they start banning muslims entering the country.

GLC should make a new hit single called "Guns don't kill people, muslims do" 

The whole thing is absolutely absurd and it's genuinely frightening that people are seemingly okay with these actions. 

Edited February 1, 2017 by PieFacE

[StefanAVFC]

"A few people were inconvenienced, so what?"

Quote

A former American serviceman who served in Iraq, where he was born, says his sick mother died a day after being turned away from the U.S. as a result of President Donald Trump’s executive order abruptly banning entry to travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries.

Mike Hager told Fox 2 Detroit that he had traveled to Iraq before the order was implemented, with several family members who were permanent U.S. residents, when his mother fell ill. None of them expected any trouble on their return; Hager is a U.S. citizen, and his mother has lived in the U.S. since 1995. She had a green card.

But when they checked in at the airport in Iraq, only Hager was allowed through. He left his family behind and returned to his home in Michigan. One day later, he told the broadcaster, his mother passed away.

"I was just shocked. I had to put my mom back on the wheelchair and take her back and call the ambulance and she was very, very upset,” Hager told Fox 2 Detroit, recalling the moment they were pried apart at the terminal. “She knew right there if we send her back to the hospital she's going to pass away — she's not going to make it."

Hager and his family reportedly fled Iraq during the Gulf War. After spending four years in a refugee camp, they were resettled in the U.S., Fox 2 reports. A few years later, he decided to return to his home country as an American serviceman, working with the U.S. Special Forces as an interpreter and adviser.

He believes his mother would have survived if she had been able to return to her home and seek treatment, Fox 2 said.

"They destroyed us,” Hager told Fox 2. “I went with my family, I came back by myself. They destroyed our family.”

**** these **** ****.

To add this abortion of a story.

Detroit has the highest concentration of Arabic Muslims in the US, including the only majority-Muslim city (Hamtramck), and it hasn't had a single terrorist attack. As it turns out, a shit ton of muslims who hate these guys because they had to literally flee their country to escape them turn out to be pretty good informants. Who would have thought that the best defense against radical islam is moderate islam.

Edited February 1, 2017 by StefanAVFC

[villakram]

14 hours ago, maqroll said:

Homicides in the United States last year committed by "Islamic Terrorists" accounted for less than 0.5/% of all US homicides. Clearly the major threat to Americans are....other Americans....usually with guns...the notable exceptions to this rule are the 9/11 hijackers, almost all of whom came from countries NOT presently banned by Trump. Why were Saudi Arabia and Egypt not included in the ban? Because Trump has business interests in those countries. Convenient, right? Anyone else see a problem? 

Nope. 

They are not in the ban because the legal framework he has utilized to implement this executive action is the law passed by congress and Obama last year naming those 7 countries as naughty. Would you care to guess what prompted them to pass this law. Yup, a certain republican presidential candidate's campaign rhetoric. It's almost funny.

Completely agree regarding the absurdity of human danger appreciation/perception. Fast cars and guns period.

[tonyh29]

interesting perspective

Sheikh Abdullah also noted that most of the world's Muslim-majority countries were not covered by the order, which halts entry for 90 days to citizens of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.

"This is a temporary ban and it will be revised in three months, so it is important that we put into consideration this point," he said following talks with his Russian counterpart in the Emirati capital, Abu Dhabi.

"Some of these countries that were on this list are countries that face structural problems," he continued. "These countries should try to solve these issues ... and these circumstances before trying to solve this issue with the United States."

[mjmooney]