Trump Signs Order to Restrict Refugees from 7 Countries But Not Saudi Arabia

no they aren't. Don't confuse some random tumblr blog or tweet as prevalent opinions.

How about this. No one here is debating that notion, so debate one of us not some random twitter use none of us have control over.

 

We let these people become President and hold the highest offices in the land.

 

No sense arguing. There is not a travel ban that would get past these judges.

 

It's as if the judges went to some school where they teach them about the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

How bazaar.

 

And they are upholding it, funny how the Orange-atang in chief has trouble doing this same.

DD

 

A person who has deeply ingrained beliefs and considers himself morally justified may not be willing to respond with a bold-faced lie, even if it raises an obvious red flag.

And I think the question is legitimate. There are a significant number of people from that part of the world (not just Muslims, by the way) who think honor killings are justifiable. Why shouldn't a broad assessment of their cultural attitudes be part of the vetting process? Whether it's considered a "stereotype" or not really shouldn't be a factor.

 

I have no problem with any of those questions.

But the point isn't just to flag people who actively want to kill Americans. But, more broadly, to flag people who may develop such a desire over time or who may raise kids who develop that desire. So merely asking "Do you want to kill Americans" is far too narrow.

 

Imagine this: every white American entering Europe is asked by customs "Do you support the lynching of black people?"

 

You embarrass yourself with the intellectual/moral credibility and basic assumption of competence you lend to the most obviously, explicitly anti-intellectual and amoral groups in history, and certainly the most incompetent crew ever to make it ot the white house in the modern era.

Can't tell if it's a personality quirk or a syndrome or just trollololol. Meh, whatever.

 

The people who would answer yes aren't the kind of people who travel.

 

i seriously don't know how to respond to this... i will just pass

 

It's impossible. I mean, why don't we just flag people who may become murderers here in America, so we can eliminate murder? Nay, flag people whose children may become murderers? It doesn't work.

 

I wish you wouldn't. If my thinking is dead wrong here, and I'm always open to that possibility, I'd like people to set me straight.

 

Do you also proclaim your love of the US Constitution?

 

I'm making no assumptions about their intentions or whether their reasoning on this matter is the same as mine.

 

You are seriously projecting something not so flattering here if you think that people are that naive on a systemic level. That's an obvious question you don't want to say 'yes' to American officials holding the keys to your entry.

 

What you're advocating is essentially thought police.

You know what we say in our country? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. It is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, at last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. I have in the past said such things justifying active violent resistance against government that might have become tyrannical. Maybe if I was subject to an immigration officer, they'd think ideas like that are pretty damn alarming, but we say it to each other all the time and consider ourselves great patriots for doing so. I might also say I'd be willing to murder someone for raping my daughter. I might say a policeman is justified in killing someone if he feels his life is endangered. I might say an annoying liberal reporter deserves to get bodyslammed for sticking recorders in people's faces all the time. Just because an idea is about violence does not mean it is criminal or even irresponsible or that the government has any business automatically to forbid it. We get to be more picky about immigration, since we don't have any obligation to let them in in the first place. But, it's a foolish road to go down trying to police for thoughts. You can't detect them. And, even if you did, you'd find something only as dark and complex as the thoughts of our own citizens.

 

I don't disagree with any of this. But this is not a freedom of speech or freedom of thought issue, because ...

This.

Now you're switching gears from "thought police" to "you can't detect them". It's a different argument.

I disagree with "you can't detect them" as an excuse not to do it. It may not be a 100% perfect detection system, but it doesn't need to be. It needs to be effective at categorizing certain groups of people as "high risk". And we should be able to reject their application, on that basis. Good people may be effected, and that's unfortunate. But, again, they don't have a right to enter, and we don't have an obligation to let them in.

Also, that we may reject people for having beliefs that some US citizens may have is not a reason not to do it. A vetting process should apply higher standards for admittance than mere lawfulness, which is all we require of US citizens.

 

As I wrote earlier, I would prefer something more probing then a direct yes/no question to try to understand their beliefs on this topic. But it doesn't hurt to ask the direct question either. "It's not fair to Muslims" is a laughable reason to not broach the topic.

 

ISIS IS A POLITICAL ORGANIZATION. NOT A RELIGIOUS ONE.

Why is so hard to understand that ISIS and similar groups are acting out of objections to policy and military action? ISIS didn't bomb that Ariana Grande concert because they were all christians. The Orlando shooter didn't act because everyone in that gay club were christians. They did it to hurt the western powers in the way they feel like they've been hurt with action in the middle east. They know they can't fight as well out in the open but they can do this ****. They want the US and others out of Syria, Iraq and to abandon support for Israel. They want to take control of middle eastern governments.


This is painfully obvious that the religion is a very easy and simple thing to blame an extremely complex conflict on. Trump just likes things he can say that fit on a hat or can get a quick cheer from rallies. Am I taking crazy pills here?