|
|
Soooooo 15 of 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi Arabian but they aren't on travel ban
Of the seven countries on this absurd travel ban, not one American has lost a life on our soil to anyone from those countries
So can someone tell me the purpose of this? We have students that can't go home and come back to school. Why?
Yes, and its for good reason.Originally Posted by Dixonfor6
I think TEMPORARY freeze is related to the difficulty of actually vetting someone from one of these countries and not necessarily where the terrorists were coming from. Before 9/11, we really weren't vetting anyone to this degree. This freeze just allows us to figure out how to make sure the folks from these areas aren't going to come in and kill us.
I think it's for just 90 days. Seems like a lot of drama for a 90 day freeze.
But why? These people aren't "killing us"
Why would we think they are coming to kill us, especially more than people from the countries of people who have killed many Americans?
I just don't know how to explain it any better. It is difficult to vet them because they don't have the systems and information we need to figure out who they are. We CAN get that information from the Saudis, so the extreme vetting is already taking place there--we just have to figure out how to do it to the people coming here from the other countries. Are you suggesting we ban all Muslims?
This is way more lenient than pushing people through Ellis Island (once again, it is 90 days) where we used to hold them until we were certain of why they were here, and the world is far more dangerous today.
I'm not having trouble understanding your explanation. I'm having trouble understanding the rationale behind it, because there's not one. If the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, why do we need to vet people from those countries any more than what our typical vetting process uncovers?
I'm not suggesting we ban any Muslims. Terrorists? Yes.
We don't. The " typical vetting process" involves information coming from those countries about the immigrant(s) which is the normal practice. The seven countries listed either refuse to provide that information or they lack capabilities to provide the information. This is not a matter of reason. It is a matter of law...law that was set up to PROTECT AMERICAN CITIZENS None of the networks, other than Fox News of course, will report that facts.
Off topic a bit, but I can't wait to find out what Obama was planning to do with the Australian Prisoners he agreed to accept with ZERO vetting at all..."Yeah, that's fine! Send 'em over! They can go to one our our sanctuary cities, be cared for by our federal tax dollars, and not fear being locked back up." ...and the Australian PM wanted to get rid of them? Why? Both Obama and the Australian PM are the worst kind of human beings alive.
It took me less than 1 minute to find this. Reckon Obama knew?
In Australia, 44.3% of prisoners released during 2012–13 returned to prison within two years. Over the same period, 51.1% of prisoners returned to corrective services (including prison sentences and community orders). Victoria’s rate of return to prison (44.1%) was comparable with the Australian average (44.3%). The Northern Territory had the highest rate of people returning to prison, at 57.5%.
Several of the countries are at war, and are not fully able to assess their refugees. Libya, Syria, Iraq for example. Iran I don't believe to be that bad, but American policy to Iran has been pretty hostile since the 1979 crisis; probably something to do with their hostility to Israel and Saudi Arabia, two of our biggest allies in the region.
I don't believe this ban to be as bad as some of the media describe. It is not necessarily a Muslim band, as Trump indicated that refugees applying from countries who are religious minorities will be fast tracked. In much of the middle East (except Israel), that would include Christians and Jews. From Israel, that would include Muslims. From China, Burma/Myanmar, that would include Muslims...
As for Obama's vetting process, I question it's rigor, as the sheet for the vetting process was riddled with statistically misleading facts. For instance, it said less than 1% of the global refugee pool make it past the first tier of US vetting. On the surface that seems very rigorous. However, you must first consider how many of the global refugee pool actually applies to the US, what numbers they are using for the global pool, and how many are actually declined. It is probably not as low as 1%; I'm guessing somewhere from 10%-80% are declined. If they would just use actual numbers, it would have been more factually helpful.
Pakistani Elvis is pretty tight.
Reminds me of Conrad Birdie:
Pictured here with the adorable Ann-Margaret
Was not a big Trump fan four months ago, but preferred him over Hillary just because she was not fit to lead.
I am now thinking Trump can become another Reagan, or better. Finally someone is fighting for America (nobody since Reagan has done that).
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
A great America sure is expensive.
It's amazing how many billion can be saved when the guy in charge is a successful business man rather than a career trough feeder like McCain, Bush, Rubio, and Kasich.
We'll see. He didn't say anything about that. Paid family medical leave and a trillion in infrastructure...spend your way to prosperity.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
