US Immigration Reform

If America and the uk did not meddle in countries such as Iraq, Syria, Libya etc and continue to bomb...surely there would be less refugees from those countries and perhaps we wouldn't have a situation as we do now, whereby the people of those countries are risking life and limb to Make a better life for themselves. Yes they could go live in a tent in some neighbouring country but why would you want that for your family. I certainly wouldn't if I had a better chance elsewhere.

The argument that Obama destabilised the middle east amuses me to no end. I'll be frank, he didn't help the situation a great deal but the middle east wasn't exactly the pinnacle of stability before hand and it turned into a mess when a republican led government decided to get involved there. Mostly because of oil and let's not pretend otherwise. Obama is not the reason the middle east is a mess. He and his administration were left with one hell of a mess that they did their best to clean up and their best wasn't quite enough.

Any actions planned or conducted by Obama's administration still don't justify what Trump is doing now either. No matter how you try and spin it, no matter what they did before now and even if this writ was initially drafted by Obama's administration(which we all know it wasn't) it does not excuse that Trump is carrying these actions out. Especially when, as has been mentioned before, there has never been a fatal attack launched by refugees from any of the countries targeted by this ban. Your argument is a smokescreen that is failing to cover anything up.

If Trump really wanted to keep American's safe, he'd do something about the rampant gun violence in the US that no other first world western country has, he'd do something about the political violence he is largely responsible for, he'd do something about the massive class divide in the US and he'd probably stop antagonising his allies. This ban, temporary or otherwise (keeping in mind that it is indefinite for some of the affected nations), has everything to do with Trump's prejudices and more of his fear-mongering and pandering to his fellow xenophobes and nothing to do with keeping anyone safe.

As for your comment about not arguing if Trump is xenophobic/racist because of the implications against his supporters, I'm less inclined to beat around the bush. A large number of Trump's supporters are white nationalist neo-nazis (the alt-right) or similarly inclined, another large number have just been fooled by his rhetoric and claims that he'll never back up, a few probably agree with his economic strategies (mostly wealthy people who will benefit or poor people who don't know better) and then some just hated Hillary so much they were willing to elect a madman. Obviously those aren't the only reasons, but I'm pretty confident that they're the biggest. There's not much point going further on that line of discussion though, because we'll end up straying from the topic. I'm just tired of humouring the belief that just because a lot of people voted for Trump it was in anyway the wise thing to do. The man is already doing a good job of living up to claims of fascism and shows no signs of stopping any time soon.

Kanzler said:

At least for airstrikes in the Middle East you could argue that was for killing terrorism and was for national security interests. Obama certainly didn't authorize those attacks "for fun" or for boosting his own sake in domestic politics. Trump is obviously just appealing to the racist elements of American society - his XO doesn't even make sense if it's trying to curb people from countries that generate the most terrorism. He's ripping up what this country stands for for the sake of his own personal detestable political goals. I think it's very obvious that Trump's not doing it for the "greater good".

Like, if you're arguing from the perspective of the consequences of those respective actions, then yeah, Trump hasn't killed anyone with his XO. But there's another side to it - what Trump is doing is more threatening to the basic identity of the United States.

Click to expand...

Likewise with Trump, you can argue that he's put this plan in motion not because he was a racist orange buffoon with funny hair who wants to watch the world burn for his own pleasure, but because those countries are deemed currently unsafe (by the Obama administration no less) and he wants to make sure safer vetting procedures are in place before letting the harmless in. Obama even banned Iraqi refugees for 6 months in 2011 (granted, it's not exactly the same as this XO which also bars green card holders) and there were no calls for racism, and rightly so. I do agree that this was sort of extreme and its effectiveness is somewhat questionable, but if Trump administration's intention was to prioritize safety of Americans then I don't have too much complaints because it's better to be safe than sorry. I don't believe it's an attempt to appeal to the "racist" elements of American society, either, especially considering that this ban isn't even permanent. Trump does appeal to nationalism, but again I don't believe nationalism equates to racism.

Aeroblast said:

Likewise with Trump, you can argue that he's put this plan in motion not because he was a racist orange buffoon with funny hair who wants to watch the world burn for his own pleasure, but because those countries are deemed currently unsafe (by the Obama administration no less) and he wants to make sure safer vetting procedures are in place before letting the harmless in. Obama even banned Iraqi refugees for 6 months in 2011 (granted, it's not exactly the same as this XO which also bars green card holders) and there were no calls for racism, and rightly so. I do agree that this was sort of extreme and its effectiveness is somewhat questionable, but if Trump administration's intention was to prioritize safety of Americans then I don't have too much complaints because it's better to be safe than sorry. I don't believe it's an attempt to appeal to the "racist" elements of American society, either, especially considering that this ban isn't even permanent. Trump does appeal to nationalism, but again I don't believe nationalism equates to racism.

Click to expand...

Again, it isn't permanent but the ban against Syria (and I think one or two others) is indefinite from what I understand. That means it may well continue a long way past the three months outlined.

Aeroblast said:

Likewise with Trump, you can argue that he's put this plan in motion not because he was a racist orange buffoon with funny hair who wants to watch the world burn for his own pleasure, but because those countries are deemed currently unsafe (by the Obama administration no less) and he wants to make sure safer vetting procedures are in place before letting the harmless in. Obama even banned Iraqi refugees for 6 months in 2011 (granted, it's not exactly the same as this XO which also bars green card holders) and there were no calls for racism, and rightly so. I do agree that this was sort of extreme and its effectiveness is somewhat questionable, but if Trump administration's intention was to prioritize safety of Americans then I don't have too much complaints because it's better to be safe than sorry. I don't believe it's an attempt to appeal to the "racist" elements of American society, either, especially considering that this ban isn't even permanent. Trump does appeal to nationalism, but again I don't believe nationalism equates to racism.

Click to expand...

Obama did not ban refugees, he slowed down the proceedings to beef up the screening process after some vulnerabilities were found. Applications were still received and approved during that time, albeit more slowly.

And there is a difference bewteen labeling those countries "dangerous" (because they were in civil wars, mostly) and deciding that each and every one of their inhabitants are direct threats to US citizens.

But sure, Obama and Trump are identical clones, and Trump's crazy ideas are right because a large enough minority voted for them.

Ivysaur said:

Obama did not ban refugees, he slowed down the proceedings to beef up the screening process after some vulnerabilities were found. Applications were still received and approved during that time, albeit more slowly.

And there is a difference bewteen labeling those countries "dangerous" (because they were in civil wars, mostly) and deciding that each and every one of their inhabitants are direct threats to US citizens.

But sure, Obama and Trump are identical clones, and Trump's crazy ideas are right because a large enough minority voted for them.

Click to expand...

I generally don't like accusing people of things or calling them this or that, but I must communicate that I concur with the sentiment of this post :(

gimmepie said:

Again, it isn't permanent but the ban against Syria (and I think one or two others) is indefinite from what I understand. That means it may well continue a long way past the three months outlined.

Click to expand...

Where in the executive order does it suggest this?

Honestly, I would support the ban if it had actually included Pakistan considering the list came from a previous list used by Obama, but only if it didn't affect as many innocent people as it has. People were detained at airports and many college students are unable to leave to country to see their families or are unable to return home form trips abroad. It should not effect permanent residents in the US, nor people who already have visas, nor Americans with citizenship from said countries. No law should be this broad, nor should it affect legitimate citizens and residents of the US.

gimmepie said:

If Trump really wanted to keep American's safe, he'd do something about the rampant gun violence in the US that no other first world western country has, he'd do something about the political violence he is largely responsible for, he'd do something about the massive class divide in the US and he'd probably stop antagonising his allies. This ban, temporary or otherwise (keeping in mind that it is indefinite for some of the affected nations), has everything to do with Trump's prejudices and more of his fear-mongering and pandering to his fellow xenophobes and nothing to do with keeping anyone safe.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't argue that he's largely responsible for the political violence in this country, seeing as a lot of it seems to be coming from a radical left insurgence in this country. For example, the Antifa riot in UC Berkeley and the riots they were affiliated in during #DisruptJ20. Arguably the gun violence would probably be solved if a lot of states just required a permit to buy a gun and also required people to take firearm safety sources. Criminals are going to smuggle their guns illegally, especially those within gangs connected to the cartels. But I digress.

Aeroblast said:

Where in the executive order does it suggest this?

Click to expand...

My mistake to a degree, the indefinite ban is only for Syria.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...d-us-president-muslim-countries-a7561986.html

There were a couple of other articles that said the same but I can't be bothered digging them up. Just searching "Countries banned by Trump" should bring most of them up.

gimmepie said:

My mistake to a degree, the indefinite ban is only for Syria.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...d-us-president-muslim-countries-a7561986.html

There were a couple of other articles that said the same but I can't be bothered digging them up. Just searching "Countries banned by Trump" should bring most of them up.

Click to expand...

You can check for yourself here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

Is there anywhere in that executive order that says ban for Syria is indefinite?

Thepowaofhax said:

I wouldn't argue that he's largely responsible for the political violence in this country, seeing as a lot of it seems to be coming from a radical left insurgence in this country. For example, the Antifa riot in UC Berkeley and the riots they were affiliated in during #DisruptJ20. Arguably the gun violence would probably be solved if a lot of states just required a permit to buy a gun and also required people to take firearm safety sources. Criminals are going to smuggle their guns illegally, especially those within gangs connected to the cartels. But I digress.

Click to expand...

I won't pretend that everyone on the left is innocent, because we all know that's never been true and never will be. However, Trump has incited violence and encouraged intimidation tactics (please don't try and pretend otherwise) throughout his campaign - going as far as to suggest assassination, is constantly threatening other nations with violence and thrives on promoting hate and dividing people. I don't know how you can ignore that at the very least, Trump has a large role in the rise of political violence in the US right now.

Aeroblast said:

You can check for yourself here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

Is there anywhere in that executive order that says ban for Syria is indefinite?

Click to expand...

I'll read through that a bit later, don't let me forget.

gimmepie said:

I won't pretend that everyone on the left is innocent, because we all know that's never been true and never will be. However, Trump has incited violence and encouraged intimidation tactics (please don't try and pretend otherwise) throughout his campaign - going as far as to suggest assassination, is constantly threatening other nations with violence and thrives on promoting hate and dividing people. I don't know how you can ignore that at the very least, Trump has a large role in the rise of political violence in the US right now.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying that he is innocent, I'm saying a lot more of it is backlash from a minority of radical leftists. Besides, he didn't mention assassination. That Washington rally was merely pointing out that if Hillary Clinton tried to make an amendment to abolish gun rights that it would only lead to a bloody revolution. We are not a tyrannical government and the abolishment of the second amendment is the starting point for tyranny for most people here. There are no doubt Trump supporter instigating some of the violence, but it seems like a good bit of it is retaliatory for them.

Thepowaofhax said:

I'm not saying that he is innocent, I'm saying a lot more of it is backlash from a minority of radical leftists. Besides, he didn't mention assassination. That Washington rally was merely pointing out that if Hillary Clinton tried to make an amendment to abolish gun rights that it would only lead to a bloody revolution. We are not a tyrannical government and the abolishment of the second amendment is the starting point for tyranny for most people here. There are no doubt Trump supporter instigating some of the violence, but it seems like a good bit of it is retaliatory for them.

Click to expand...

You can pretend that's what he meant, that's certainly what his PR team scrambled to make people believe, but I don't buy it for a second. I still stand by my statement fully, I'm not going to defend political violence from the left but this did not start there.

I like the choice of words "this is not a tyrannical government" though. What else do you call disproportionately targeting immigrants and Muslims whilst strongarming anyone who disagrees with you or otherwise outright forcing them out of government? If that's not a tyrannical fascist regime yet, it's getting pretty damn close.

gimmepie said:

You can pretend that's what he meant, that's certainly what his PR team scrambled to make people believe, but I don't buy it for a second. I still stand by my statement fully, I'm not going to defend political violence from the left but this did not start there.

I like the choice of words "this is not a tyrannical government" though. What else do you call disproportionately targeting immigrants and Muslims whilst strongarming anyone who disagrees with you or otherwise outright forcing them out of government? If that's not a tyrannical fascist regime yet, it's getting pretty damn close.

Click to expand...

Targeting illegal immigrants with deportations is understandable because they got here illegally. Banning travel between us and Muslims countries with high amounts of terrorism for national security reasons is also understandable, however his execution was sloppy and it's affecting green card holders. That's not really fascist or tyrannical per say; after all, closing borders with other countries is quite often done by other countries as a political statement to that country (such as a lot of Middle Eastern countries closing travel between themselves and Israel). Now, he hasn't really ousted much people in government other than the Attorney General who did not want to do her job (which was getting replaced anyways) and the most he's done is either change the focus of an organization (like NASA's focus on climate change to space travel) or cry in a corner like a little baby with his small hands. If he were to threaten the democracy of this nation, the government would have a moral obligation to oust him from power or face a bloody revolution.

Edit: By the way, PM me if Trump wants the regimentation of society and the economy, otherwise he's no fascist.

I live in a sanctuary city that is not gonna stop letting immigrants in, and I've gone to the city council meetings or whatever they are called, and they have a ton of projects already in the works, so RIP. I hear free lunch programs might get defunded too. Screw Trump. Other presidents may have blocked immigration in some form, but this is just ridiculous.

So, a bit late, but I don't remember anyone mentioning it before, but apparently some changes have been made to the EO over the last few days:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/changes-trumps-executive-order-immigration-explained/
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/polit...ly-halts-trump-travel-ban-nationwide-ag-says/

It seems that supposedly now people with pre-exisitng valid visas and green cards from the banned countries are allowed in. Or something like that, not entirely sure what's the deal here

I might be veering a bit offtopic, but after my pic in page 1, I felt I needed to post an update:



Massive demonstration in Barcelona yesterday, under the slogan "No more excuses, we want to welcome", demanding that more refugees are sent to Spain.

I'm really proud of my country sometimes.

Ivysaur said:

I might be veering a bit offtopic, but after my pic in page 1, I felt I needed to post an update:

Spoiler:

Massive demonstration in Barcelona yesterday, under the slogan "No more excuses, we want to welcome", demanding that more refugees are sent to Spain.

I'm really proud of my country sometimes.

Click to expand...

If Trump burns into the national memory the same way Franco did, then you might see that kind of social attitude in the USA a couple decades from now - maybe 2030's?

In my local town there's a weird situation going on at the moment:

We experienced an earthquake back in 2012 which damaged a lot of buildings and some of them are still waiting to be repaired or rebuilt from scratch.
For that reason, (some people especially in rural areas) don't have a house yet and they have to use campers or caravans as a house.
Well, today there are also immigrants that are willing to establish here, but the mayor rejected them because there's no place to host them right now.
I'm sorry for them, it's a very complicated situation... there are so many problems to solve, I hope that there will be some room for them in the near future.

Also, today I read the news and I was shocked by this.
I've never seen a president making up a terrorist attack to justify his actions.
I'm so concerned that something bad will happen with Trump as president, he's got a toy on his hands that's just too big for him.

So I came across an argument on how to stop illegal immigrations: Make Mexico Great Again
The argument basically went that Mexico is largely controlled by drug cartels that have Americans as a large customer base because it's illegal in the states. This results in the cartels buying off Mexican officials with their tremendous swathes of monetary income and doing things that just generally make Mexicans miserable in their country, forcing them to immigrate.

The argument suggests that America should legalize drugs and prostitution, thereby taking the customer base away from cartels and directing them to state-endorsed vendors, cutting off the cartel's income and making them lose power in Mexico.