• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

NYT: Refugees and immigrants being detained at US airports right now.

Status
Not open for further replies.

RDreamer

Member
What's amazing is that Trump & co. *could* have gotten away with the ban, but decided to go one step further with the green cards, dual citizenship, etc and now we're in this complete clusterfuck with the judiciary branch breathing down their necks.

Wouldn't be surprised if they wanted that sort of thing because it provokes liberals into protests which further splits the electorate into two sides. Crybaby liberals protesting shit that Obama did and not giving Trump a chance is totally the narrative they want.
 

Surfinn

Member
Crossposting:
ESzH8ZO.png
He must be stopped. At all costs.

He's beyond logic and reason.
 

Ithil

Member
This will rile up some, but he's exposing himself. Keep pushing.

He already exposed how he has zero empathy for the people over there when he thought the only goal of the assault on Mosul was to "capture the ISIS leaders there" and nothing more, nothing about breaking ISIS' stronghold in Iraq, nothing about freeing the million civilians trapped there under a brutal occupation.

But I never once saw this point raised after the debates, it was like I was the only one to notice how he had zero empathy or even thought towards the innocent people trapped in the city.
 
Question.

Were another large-scale terror attack to occur in the US, and the perpetrators were Arabs on a visitor Visa, there would be more bipartisan support for a blanket ban entry for all people from these nations. Would you endorse that? Or would you maintain the position - like you are now - that it prejudices against all Muslims?

Is the issue here that such a ban is unethical and therefore unacceptable in any circumstance, or is it the suspicion that this is only the beginning of something greater by an administration filled with far-right members?
 
Question.

Were another large-scale terror attack to occur in the US, and the perpetrators were Arabs on a visitor Visa, there would be more bipartisan support for a blanket ban entry for all people from these nations. Would you endorse that? Or would you maintain the position - like you are now - that it prejudices against all Muslims?

Is the issue here that such a ban is unethical and therefore unacceptable in any circumstance, or is it the suspicion that this is only the beginning of something greater by an administration filled with far-right members?
Of course not.
 

Boke1879

Member
What's amazing is that Trump & co. *could* have gotten away with the ban, but decided to go one step further with the green cards, dual citizenship, etc and now we're in this complete clusterfuck with the judiciary branch breathing down their necks.

I'm telling you Bannon and Miller are like kids in a candy store. They got all this power and are drunk with it. They are doing too much way too fucking fast.

Like you said Trump could have gotten away with this if he just took his time. Went through congress and worked out the particulars. Anyone with a Visa/Green card would be exempt and you'd probably have the American people ok with this.

But nope. They are just drafting up shit and Trump not knowing shit about anything is just signing and it's creating chaos.
 
Question.

Were another large-scale terror attack to occur in the US, and the perpetrators were Arabs on a visitor Visa, there would be more bipartisan support for a blanket ban entry for all people from these nations. Would you endorse that? Or would you maintain the position - like you are now - that it prejudices against all Muslims?

Is the issue here that such a ban is unethical and therefore unacceptable in any circumstance, or is it the suspicion that this is only the beginning of something greater by an administration filled with far-right members?

No.

And there's a huge difference between pausing something right after a terror attack for a few hours/days and what's happening here.
 

norinrad

Member
I see our residential tweet guy is up on a Sunday morning throwing tantrums and bullshitting on Twitter again without any responsibility.
 
Question.

Were another large-scale terror attack to occur in the US, and the perpetrators were Arabs on a visitor Visa, there would be more bipartisan support for a blanket ban entry for all people from these nations. Would you endorse that? Or would you maintain the position - like you are now - that it prejudices against all Muslims?

Is the issue here that such a ban is unethical and therefore unacceptable in any circumstance, or is it the suspicion that this is only the beginning of something greater by an administration filled with far-right members?


Both and the proximity to a terrorist attack is in no way relevant to any of this.
 

Future

Member
Question.

Were another large-scale terror attack to occur in the US, and the perpetrators were Arabs on a visitor Visa, there would be more bipartisan support for a blanket ban entry for all people from these nations. Would you endorse that? Or would you maintain the position - like you are now - that it prejudices against all Muslims?

Is the issue here that such a ban is unethical and therefore unacceptable in any circumstance, or is it the suspicion that this is only the beginning of something greater by an administration filled with far-right members?

of course no one would. Because that's the type of discrimination everyone is supposed to be against

The ban is unethical and painful to legal residents of the US.
 

Chocolate & Vanilla

Fuck Strawberry
Question.

Were another large-scale terror attack to occur in the US, and the perpetrators were Arabs on a visitor Visa, there would be more bipartisan support for a blanket ban entry for all people from these nations. Would you endorse that? Or would you maintain the position - like you are now - that it prejudices against all Muslims?

Is the issue here that such a ban is unethical and therefore unacceptable in any circumstance, or is it the suspicion that this is only the beginning of something greater by an administration filled with far-right members?


Arab =/= Muslim =/= Iranian =/= Kurdish =/= Somalian. Shall I go on


That's just the first thing wrong with your question
 
Question.

Were another large-scale terror attack to occur in the US, and the perpetrators were Arabs on a visitor Visa, there would be more bipartisan support for a blanket ban entry for all people from these nations. Would you endorse that? Or would you maintain the position - like you are now - that it prejudices against all Muslims?

Is the issue here that such a ban is unethical and therefore unacceptable in any circumstance, or is it the suspicion that this is only the beginning of something greater by an administration filled with far-right members?

Terrorism is a political problem, not a military or national security one. The fear of terrorism is exploited by the ruling class for whatever means they feel necessary.

I would not support any ban of any people just because of a few radicals did something. Preventing terrorism by banning a country or region is like burning a park because your dog got fleas. It doesn't prevent anything and it actually causes everyone to lose sympathy for your injury.
 

kmax

Member
Question.

Were another large-scale terror attack to occur in the US, and the perpetrators were Arabs on a visitor Visa, there would be more bipartisan support for a blanket ban entry for all people from these nations. Would you endorse that? Or would you maintain the position - like you are now - that it prejudices against all Muslims?

Is the issue here that such a ban is unethical and therefore unacceptable in any circumstance, or is it the suspicion that this is only the beginning of something greater by an administration filled with far-right members?

Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

- Benjamin Franklin

That's my stance. It's final and unshakable.
 
I ask because I honestly don't know whether we'd be seeing this level of support and protest against this were such draconian measures brought in following a terror attack.

You are all decent people.
 

JDHarbs

Member
Question.

Were another large-scale terror attack to occur in the US, and the perpetrators were Arabs on a visitor Visa, there would be more bipartisan support for a blanket ban entry for all people from these nations. Would you endorse that? Or would you maintain the position - like you are now - that it prejudices against all Muslims?

Is the issue here that such a ban is unethical and therefore unacceptable in any circumstance, or is it the suspicion that this is only the beginning of something greater by an administration filled with far-right members?
If a white supremacist group from a European country committed a similar act, would a similar ban be endorsed?

I doubt it.
 

RDreamer

Member
Question.

Were another large-scale terror attack to occur in the US, and the perpetrators were Arabs on a visitor Visa, there would be more bipartisan support for a blanket ban entry for all people from these nations. Would you endorse that? Or would you maintain the position - like you are now - that it prejudices against all Muslims?

Is the issue here that such a ban is unethical and therefore unacceptable in any circumstance, or is it the suspicion that this is only the beginning of something greater by an administration filled with far-right members?

There are many reasons to be against this ban and it's hard to speculate on an event you give no real details on.

The ban stokes Islamic fear with no real basis in reality. As Guilliani said, it started with being a Muslim ban and then was basically the closest legal thing we could get away with. The rhetoric that leads up to something like this can be dangerous in and of itself. We need to work with countries that are primarily Muslim. We also need to show people that we are not at war with Islam and instead terrorists.

The ban doesn't actually do anything to help national security. Including and since 9/11, no one from any of these countries has done anything terror related at all. Even if one person randomly did, then that doesn't really change the math terribly much. Should we look at our process should something happen? Sure, but 1 out of ~800,000 really isn't that much worse than 0 out of ~800,000.

The ban itself ruins our moral standing and our foreign relations with allies who are taking refugees from Syria and other countries.

The ban weakens our relationship with crucial allies in the field, like translators and other fighters in Iraq, etc, who counted on being able to escape a country where they will be targeted for helping us.

The ban causes reactions from other nations that could put us strategically in jeopardy, like Iran and Iraq banning us in return. We may need to go into those areas and now we have hostilities.

In addition to being bad policy, the ban itself was insanely poorly implemented and caused a lot of chaos.

There's just a lot of to take into account without knowing what exact situation your'e talking about. Most of these things wouldn't suddenly become ok if one action happened tomorrow from an affected country. Or it wouldn't be suddenly ok if the country list included Saudi Arabia. A good administration needs to take all of these factors into account, not just scared hicks in the US. In order to keep people safe our standing in the world matters.
 

PeterGAF

Banned
What's amazing is that Trump & co. *could* have gotten away with the ban, but decided to go one step further with the green cards, dual citizenship, etc and now we're in this complete clusterfuck with the judiciary branch breathing down their necks.
We should be thankful that we're dealing with an evil buffoon and not an evil genius.
 
I ask because I honestly don't know whether we'd be seeing this level of support and protest against this were such draconian measures brought in following a terror attack.

You are all decent people.

I don't understand what you are doing here. You lead your post with a call for objectivity, but then you repeatedly attempt to inject an emotionally charged "but what if terrorism?" caviat.

Now the strange appeal to decency... I don't get it.
 
Christian Leaders Denounce Trump’s Plan to Favor Christian Immigrants; https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/...grants.html?src=twr&smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Even Focus on the Family chimed in.

This is a big deal for conservative Christians even. Two things you don't mess with 1) Missions (immigration/travel) 2) Adoption

Those two are absolutely sacred.

This was a colossal error. I have a lot of people that "voted for Trump, but I'm not racist." That are starting to voice their disappointment with this choice.
 

SeanR1221

Member
Even Focus on the Family chimed in.

This is a big deal for conservative Christians even. Two things you don't mess with 1) Missions (immigration/travel) 2) Adoption

Those two are absolutely sacred.

This was a colossal error. I have a lot of people that "voted for Trump, but I'm not racist." That are starting to voice their disappointment with this choice.

Both my parents are in that camp (were not racist but we vote trump because we're catholic). I visited for breakfast this morning and they both admit his choices are extremely worrysome and they regret voting for him.

Oh and their insurance is about to go to shit. They're worried about that too
 
Both my parents are in that camp (were not racist but we vote trump because we're catholic). I visited for breakfast this morning and they both admit his choices are extremely worrysome and they regret voting for him.

Oh and their insurance is about to go to shit. They're worried about that too

Yup. The amount of defenders this week has drastically dropped. It's either silence or dissent.

They dun goofed and they know it.
 

Boke1879

Member
Yup. The amount of defenders this week has drastically dropped. It's either silence or dissent.

They dun goofed and they know it.

There was nothing but pure sinister thoughts put into this. They are fucking up. I wish nothing but success for the protests today that keep this issue on the forefront.
 
Trump is full of shit on 2 counts on this matter

1) about Chrisitians Syrians, a Christian Syrian family (refugees) were denied entry yesterday. Customs agents don't give a fuck, they can't tell the difference

2), none of the countries where the 9/11 hijackers hailed from are on his stupid list.
 

Regulus Tera

Romanes Eunt Domus
Question.

Were another large-scale terror attack to occur in the US, and the perpetrators were Arabs on a visitor Visa, there would be more bipartisan support for a blanket ban entry for all people from these nations. Would you endorse that? Or would you maintain the position - like you are now - that it prejudices against all Muslims?

Is the issue here that such a ban is unethical and therefore unacceptable in any circumstance, or is it the suspicion that this is only the beginning of something greater by an administration filled with far-right members?
Nearly all school shootings are committed by white anglo saxon protestants and I don't see anybody pushing for a white ban.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom