By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - So, Trump's ban on certain nationalities is in effect.

 

Your opinion on the ban

Good! 145 35.02%
 
Get rid of this as fast as possible. 200 48.31%
 
Needs more exceptions 25 6.04%
 
List needs to be redone 44 10.63%
 
Total:414
Vinther1991 on 29 January 2017
NewGuy said:

Are you Cenk Uyurk? Stop labeling everything as racist and let's have a discussion. You shouldn't be sickened by people who have a different point of view and should instead debate them. 

I don't know who Cenk Uyurk is, so no. Stop calling people names and let's have a discussion.

I don't see why I should censor my opinion. If I see something I consider racist, I'll call it that, and if a viewpoint sickens me I'll say that. The United Nations definition of racial discrimination is: "Any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life." I think this law falls under that. So yes I'll call it a racist law, no matter how "political incorrect" you right-wingers think that term is.

NewGuy said:

There is nothing stopping this Danish politician from going (banned country) -> Denmark or random EU city -> US. He might even be able to go straight from (banned country) -> US given his danish citizenship.

It's not confirmed yet, but the initial message was that he cannot because he was born in Syria. What has been confirmed though is that a danish citizenship alone is not enough to be allowed entrance to the US, since people with double citizenships (like Syrian-Danish) are not allowed to enter the US.

NewGuy said:

I am for it because - as I mentioned above - those countries are all part of the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act from 2015 that the DHS deemed to be dangerous, terrorist haven countries. I don't know about you, but I don't want terrorists in my country, if possible. It is not unconstitutional and it is not a ban on muslims as it is a ban on 7 out of ~60 countries with a > 50% muslim population. Even if we say 7/50 countries, that's only 14%. Completely reasonable and I wish the  list was actually longer.

The visum rules for people from those countries are already really tough as you said. There is no need to make them tougher. There hasn't been a terrorist attack from people from these countries in America in over 20 years, so it's only hurting regular, innocent people.

Oh and btw, Americans are overrepresented in school shooting statistics, I don't want filthy school shooters in my countries. Maybe we should ban Americans from entering Denmark then?



Around the Network
Peh on 29 January 2017
areason said:
Peh said:

Well, they can't stay at home and wait for asylum while "ISIS" runs over their town burning it down and chopping people heads off, now can they?

Did you saw videos of mass execution done by them? If you are not fast enough of getting away, you are done for. It's not pretty.

You do know that before getting to America they have to actually travel, by land sea or air. On the road they have plenty of time to send their information if they do have any. 

I would really love your share of reality. Life would be so simply for everyone in my mind.

You do know what fleeing from you home means, right? Leaving your property, your belongings, all the stuff behind.

I would be pissed if the don't have at least Wifi on that boat to send those information you speak off.



Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3

areason on 29 January 2017
Scoobes said:
foodfather said:
The ban needed to happen.

But the fact that Afghanistan pakistan and saudi arabia are not on the list is a travesty. Trump is just as duplicitous as Clinton. A disappointment indeed.

Why?

The WH stated that the ban has been put into place while they design and put implement a proper vetting process. 



Peh on 29 January 2017
areason said:
Scoobes said:

Why?

The WH stated that the ban has been put into place while they design and put implement a proper vetting process. 

That's called, acting before thinking :3



Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3

areason on 29 January 2017
Peh said:
areason said:

You do know that before getting to America they have to actually travel, by land sea or air. On the road they have plenty of time to send their information if they do have any. 

I would really love your share of reality. Life would be so simply for everyone in my mind.

You do know what fleeing from you home means, right? Leaving your property, your belongings, all the stuff behind.

I would be pissed if the don't have at least Wifi on that boat to send those information you speak off.

You do realise that this boat can come from any place in the world, including places like Tunisia, Algeria and other North African countries which aren't at war but where a lot of "Refugees" come from. 

Refugees don't autmatically take a boat from Syria to the US, they are bound to pass by Europe , Turkey and other countries along the way where they will encounter law enforcement. That is how and where they can send documents (if they have any) to the American goverment. 



Around the Network
areason on 29 January 2017
Peh said:
areason said:

The WH stated that the ban has been put into place while they design and put implement a proper vetting process. 

That's called, acting before thinking :3

More like deducing that current vetting procedures aren't good enough and acting in response. 



Peh on 29 January 2017
areason said:
Peh said:

I would really love your share of reality. Life would be so simply for everyone in my mind.

You do know what fleeing from you home means, right? Leaving your property, your belongings, all the stuff behind.

I would be pissed if the don't have at least Wifi on that boat to send those information you speak off.

You do realise that this boat can come from any place in the world, including places like Tunisia, Algeria and other North African countries which aren't at war but where a lot of "Refugees" come from. 

Refugees don't autmatically take a boat from Syria to the US, they are bound to pass by Europe , Turkey and other countries along the way where they will encounter law enforcement. That is how and where they can send documents (if they have any) to the American goverment. 

You do know, that Mexicans can cross the borders by sea? War is not the only reason for asking for asylum.

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum

Every year people come to the United States seeking protection because they have suffered persecution or fear that they will suffer persecution due to:

  • Race
  • Religion
  • Nationality
  • Membership in a particular social group
  • Political opinion

If you are eligible for asylum you may be permitted to remain in the United States. To apply for Asylum, file a Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, within one year of your arrival to the United States. There is no fee to apply for asylum.

You may include your spouse and children who are in the United States on your application at the time you file or at any time until a final decision is made on your case. To include your child on your application, the child must be under 21 and unmarried. For more information see our Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal page.

People coming to countries for different reasons, like better economy are an issue I'm not denying. But yet, you have to somehow analyse them and this is a real issue at hand.




Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3

areason on 29 January 2017
Peh said:
areason said:

You do realise that this boat can come from any place in the world, including places like Tunisia, Algeria and other North African countries which aren't at war but where a lot of "Refugees" come from. 

Refugees don't autmatically take a boat from Syria to the US, they are bound to pass by Europe , Turkey and other countries along the way where they will encounter law enforcement. That is how and where they can send documents (if they have any) to the American goverment. 

You do know, that Mexicans can cross the borders by sea? War is not the only reason for asking for asylum.

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum

Every year people come to the United States seeking protection because they have suffered persecution or fear that they will suffer persecution due to:

  • Race
  • Religion
  • Nationality
  • Membership in a particular social group
  • Political opinion

If you are eligible for asylum you may be permitted to remain in the United States. To apply for Asylum, file a Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, within one year of your arrival to the United States. There is no fee to apply for asylum.

You may include your spouse and children who are in the United States on your application at the time you file or at any time until a final decision is made on your case. To include your child on your application, the child must be under 21 and unmarried. For more information see our Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal page.

People coming to countries for different reasons, like better economy are an issue I'm not denying. But yet, you have to somehow analyse them and this is a real issue at hand.

The issue at hand isn't about Mexicans. And yes you have to analyse people who come in, that's the point of passports and identity. 

Just because people are in a bad situation doesn't mean that all the set laws which apply to everyone should be disregarded. 



naruball on 29 January 2017
Scoobes said:
Lucas-Rio said:

Republican opposed Obama through the parliament.

I don't remember them setting up so many protest one week after Obama inauguration.

Yeah, sure. There was no protesting or dissent whatsoever.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2009/racist-backlash-greets-president-barack-obama

http://www.revelist.com/politics/america-responds-obama/5855/what-an-accepting-pun/2

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/us/anti-obama-protest-at-university-of-mississippi-turns-unruly.html

Something tells me that these will either be completely ignored, downplayed or forgotten soon as they do nothing for some people's confirmation bias.



Puppyroach on 29 January 2017
Lucas-Rio said:
Puppyroach said:
For all the arguments I hear here it's quite fascinating that everyone is asking whether or not their respective country need to take in refugees, not whether or not the refugees need some place to flee to. In every single nation we hear the same types of people claim that their nation cannot take in any more refugees, that society will fall apart and all kinds of depressing predictions. So where should they go?

Maybe they should stay where they are ? I know it's not popular but taking them is a huge burden and risk.

Only the one who are threatened specifically because they are known should be accepted and only if they have zero links with any violent faction.

That is going to be impossible to do and choosing fear of the unknown above human decency should make everyone nervous. Do you think the same principal should be applied to everyone in society? That you can only help people if you can determine, with 100% certainty that the person lives up to some guidelines the majority has set up?

If we instead apply logic and compassion we can safely assume, based on the numbers we have, that the risk of being a casualty of a terrorist attack is minuscule compared to the risk of dying in a shooting or hit by a car. We also know the vast majority of refugees have no desire to cause harm, and therefore the logical and compassionate thing would be the take in people and share the burden with other countries, wouldn't you agree?