• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Muslim ban already having effect

DistrictDeacon said:
But we do know that his EO allowing for priority for religious minorities does not apply to any country that is not majority-Muslim.
Click to expand...

Uh, ok. And we also know that, for now, his list of 7 countries is based on a 2015 law passed by Congress and signed into law by Obama.

Again, the media loves stories of crying Grandma's at the airport, but they have done a horseshit job of framing up the debate we should all really be having as a country.
 
DeacMan said:
Uh, ok. How are you going to hold Trump to account if you do not know the substance behind the decisions to admit or not admit under Obama's vetting? You'll call his vetting bullshit on grounds (A through Z) and he'll say it is by and large very similar to Obama's with the following enhancements (X, Y and Z). If you think he's a bullshitter, then what? You've ceded the entire argument to him. Good work.

The media is doing everyone a huge disservice by not asking these questions.
Click to expand...

We can hold him to account by the number of refugees being allowed in. Under Obama we were taking in far less than we safely could have taken in.

If even more extreme vetting leads to even higher confidence in the refugees we are admitting leads to more refugees being admitted then I'm all for it. If it's just a pretense for turning our back on the largest humanitarian crisis since WWII then fuck that.
 
Very responsible first list of countries. Obama compiled this list of 7 countries. Trump just duplicated this list so it is a great first step to actually take the first step and enforce it to make OUR country safer as people coming from these 7 countries enter our borders. It has probably not gone far enough but has put other countries on notice! Don't mess with the U.S.!!! The Donald and Mad Dog are watching you.

P.S. There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order. Obama administration identified these 7 as terriorist hotbeds.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
NYTimes on the vetting process: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/29/us/refugee-vetting-process.html?_r=0

From the official White House archives under Obama: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.go...screening-process-refugee-entry-united-states

From the US Department of State: https://www.state.gov/j/prm/ra/admissions/

Does it have specific questions that they ask? No...does it provide a pretty good picture of what the vetting process looks like? Absolutely. It appears to me to be pretty thorough, especially with an average timeframe of 18-24 months to vet.
Click to expand...

But is it EXTREME?
 
DeacMan said:
Uh, ok. And we also know that, for now, his list of 7 countries is based on a 2015 law passed by Congress and signed into law by Obama.

Again, the media loves stories of crying Grandma's at the airport, but they have done a horseshit job of framing up the debate we should all really be having as a country.
Click to expand...

Trump's Christian priority has nothing to do with Obama. That unconstitutional directive is all on him.
 
Deacs89 said:
now you like Reagan. We should rush to scream the sky is falling? Sure there are some concerns....but he he did campaign on this and the democratic united states has spoken. I do not think in light of the current climate that there is anything wrong with taking a hard look at the vetting process.
Click to expand...

My point is that you don't have to take a hard look because the process is already comprehensive and we don't have a problem in this country with terrorists coming in the guise of refugees
 
tintinisahottie said:
I don't mind not taking Syrian refugees en masse as that has gone poorly everywhere else, but I'm really against "the Muslim ban." I don't see how it makes us safer.
Click to expand...

You realize its an apples and oranges comparison right? The Syrian refugees that come to the United States have gone through a multi-year, multi-agency, multi-country vetting process. The Syrians going to Europe are storming the borders.

It's simplistic to think that one should be used to evaluate the other
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
Given the vast majority of Muslims can still come to the United States, it's a lie to refer to it as a "Muslim Ban". Why do you lie RJ? Change your title.
Click to expand...

Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani told Fox in an interview on Saturday that he helped draft President Donald Trump's "extreme vetting" executive order after Trump called him and asked how to do a "Muslim ban" "legally."
"When he first announced it, he said 'Muslim ban,'" Giuliani, who served as the vice chairman of Trump's transition team, told Fox. "He called me up. He said 'put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.'"

http://www.businessinsider.com/giuliani-trump-asked-me-how-to-do-a-muslim-ban-legally-2017-1
 
RChildress107 said:
We can hold him to account by the number of refugees being allowed in. Under Obama we were taking in far less than we safely could have taken in.

If even more extreme vetting leads to even higher confidence in the refugees we are admitting leads to more refugees being admitted then I'm all for it. If it's just a pretense for turning our back on the largest humanitarian crisis since WWII then fuck that.
Click to expand...

The EO significantly reduced the number of refugees that can be admitted this year.
 
DistrictDeacon said:
If you believe the mouth piece of the administration, they were all detained because of the executive order. And all released after just a few hours of additional questioning. And the Trump administration claims they were properly vetted.
Click to expand...

Do you know what was asked in the interviews? Has anyone bothered to ask the Trump administration? Again, if the public does not have facts up front, his administration controls the game.
 
Deacs89 said:
I know as a dem you are only used to looking at things. Its shocking that a president is taking action.

Just months ago you are were all laughing saying Trump fooled all the rubes and he isnt going to do anything he said he was lying etc.
Now your all shocked he is doing what he said.

Its exhausting to watch you guys flail around.
Click to expand...

I don't understand this line that I've heard a bunch of Trumpkins using of late. We hoped that he wouldn't do this stuff because it's certifiably insane. And now that he's doing it, we're condemning it.

Your argument basically boils down to "hey, look, all these people, including me, DID actually think he was going to do this!! So we're insane too!". Hardly covering yourself in glory
 
DeacMan said:
Do you know what was asked in the interviews? Has anyone bothered to ask the Trump administration? Again, if the public does not have facts up front, his administration controls the game.
Click to expand...

What a weird line of reasoning you continue to hold on to.

The facts are that a couple hours of questioning was all that the Trump admin needed to reassure themselves that these detainees were properly vetted. So knowing that, regardless of what they asked, why was the EO and 4 month ban necessary?
 
DeacMan said:
Do you know what was asked in the interviews? Has anyone bothered to ask the Trump administration? Again, if the public does not have facts up front, his administration controls the game.
Click to expand...

You could just look for the answer yourself.
 
palmab03 said:
To the average of the number of refugees we've taken in the past 15 years. The horror.
Click to expand...

Because the demand for refugee resettlement certainly hasn't changed in the last 15 years.

I know you won't be able to answer - but what national security reason would justify cutting the number of refugees in half?
 
palmab03 said:
To the average of the number of refugees we've taken in the past 15 years. The horror.
Click to expand...

Well there was no Syrian refugee crisis until recently. Again, these are facts that people on the right are throwing out there completely out of context.

It makes sense that the number of refugees we admit should increase commensurate with the number of refugees worldwide that need refuge
 
RChildress107 said:
We can hold him to account by the number of refugees being allowed in. Under Obama we were taking in far less than we safely could have taken in.

If even more extreme vetting leads to even higher confidence in the refugees we are admitting leads to more refugees being admitted then I'm all for it. If it's just a pretense for turning our back on the largest humanitarian crisis since WWII then fuck that.
Click to expand...

You really do not get politics do you. His entire premise is that the vetting was not sufficient. So if your means of holding him to account is to count refugees, then he's going to just say that vetting sucked my vetting is better and it justifies letting in fewer refugees.

Put it this way, do you care at all about the substantive criteria used to admit or not admit refugees? If not, prepare to be told whatever he wants to say.
 
DistrictDeacon said:
Because the demand for refugee resettlement certainly hasn't changed in the last 15 years.

I know you won't be able to answer - but what national security reason would justify cutting the number of refugees in half?
Click to expand...

taken from the moonz thread, in the 5 years immediately after the start of the Syrian civil war, Obama let in 1,883 Syrians. Can fit that in pretty comfortably in the 50,000 cap.
 
DeacMan said:
We just disagree then. Trump wants "Extreme Vetting" - what the fuck does that mean and how does it differ in substance from what Obama did. We still do not know the criteria to admit or not admit someone. And, to be clear, both sides have been blurry on all of this. Obama - the vetting is awesome. GOP - the vetting is insufficient. And on that basis we all make up our minds? No wonder Trump has been able to play things whatever way he chooses on just about any issue. For shit's sake, someone give us a deeper dive. It shouldn't be hard.
Click to expand...

While obviously not exhaustive, here's a little look into the vetting process.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...-what-we-went-through/?utm_term=.26bb995f1647

And, based on my conversations with refugees, it is a lot of grilling about your background and over the course of 2 years and many, many interviews, you have to be consistent or it is a flag. They ask about where you grew up and people you knew there - sometimes trying to trip you up, for example, "you really grew up in _____________, you must know [fake person], right?" or "[Person you may or may not know] said that you were in second grade together (which that person didn't say), can you confirm that?" A lot of questions are round about ways of trying to understand if they had connections with any groups of concern.

I know with the bio-metric data that is collected, they are fingerprinted at least 3 times and have a retina scan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top