The Muslim Ban Has Begun!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ElectricFetus, Jan 26, 2017.

  1. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,618
    I would consider the masses have been condemned by the terrorist not by me

    If you stood at the boarders with the power to allow or reject a hoard of refugees of which you know some are terrorist what percentage would you be comfortable in allowing in?

    Remember you can't tell a good guy from a bad guy

    Would you let in
    • All of the masses thinking only 1% may be a terrorist? Every 1,000 gives you 10 terrorist
    • 100% of the masses where all are considered terrorist?
    • Somewhere between? 5% 10% 50%?
    • Reject all because you don't know?
    I guess, by that logic, you should be killed because you could possibly be ready to initiate a new Crusade

    That could be applied to anyone????

    I don't see logic there
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    No. That's rather the point. You don't see the logic there, nor is it present in your own argument.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,962
    No one is hidden, they all get vetted.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Simple Questions:

    Why does a chemical engineer, her husband (also a chemical engineer) and there daughter need to stop there studies and be kicked out of the nation simply because they came from Iran? These are hardworking productive law abiding people with good skills, would this not pass trumps "well vetted" claim?
     
  8. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,618
    Are you counting the series of questions I put as a argument?

    Do you wish to respond to any of the questions?
     
  9. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,618
    Did this happen?

    How long had they been studying in the US?

    How much remaining study was there?

    Had any discrepancy been found in their original application?

    Since you appear to be quoting a news item what follow up was taken by the reporter re requesting details of any explanation given to the family?
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2017
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,934
    I wouldn't allow anyone in until they had been vetted. Fortunately they are.

    If there was no way to know? I'd allow in a population that was no different - or better - than our own. In other words, if the population had fewer than .9% of (potential) criminals in it, then letting them in would reduce, overall, crime in America.
     
  11. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,618
    So Trump is doing what is already in place may be a little stronger?
     
  12. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Lets reverse it:

    If you stood at the boarders with the power to allow or reject a hoard of refugees of which you know many will die unless they escape their current situation, what percentage would you be comfortable in allowing to die?
     
  13. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,618
    What part of "no way to know" did you not follow?

    You then follow up by "knowing" only 0.9% of the population are potential criminals.
     
  14. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,618
    Lets NOT reverse it until you answer first.
     
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,934
    You asked:
    =============
    Would you let in
    • All of the masses thinking only 1% may be a terrorist? Every 1,000 gives you 10 terrorist
    • 100% of the masses where all are considered terrorist?
    • Somewhere between? 5% 10% 50%?
    • Reject all because you don't know?
    =============

    Answer: I would let in all thinking less than .9% would be criminals.
     
  16. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Sure - I would let them in. I would do my best to vet them, and have some basic processes in place to look for possible mental health issues. Follow ups, et al, to ensure integration is going well.

    But, yes, I would let them in, knowing full well that there is a risk in doing so, but that not doing so is morally reprehensible.

    Your turn.
     
  17. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,618
    I didn't mention vetting but OK will give you that

    No kudos for taking a risk

    Having thought about my response I would NOT take any risk and turn all away

    A slight modification would be to take all children below say age six as a rough guide

    This would be under conditions
    • The parents must agree to the child being brought up in a household with no religion
    • They might be reunited with their child if the caring family agrees
    • To be reunited the family must be cleared to live in the US and must be doing so crime free
    • The child would be told of their origin on becoming 21 and the family must respect the now adult if they choose not to recognise their parents
    But yes I would turn the masses away

    At the personal level you do understand that in any dangerous situation you are not required to do anything which puts you at risk

    Akin to this many laws (so called Good Samaritan laws) are in place to ease the thought of being taken to court if you act in good faith to help someone but it doesn't work out well

    Scale-up to looking after the country I think I would consider I was not a good custodian of the populations safety if I let the masses in

    So I would turn them away

    Also take into account the notion of sovereignty of the country

    If this were not in place it would be possible for any country to go over any border and take out the nutcase running the place

    It still possible but not done except by terrorist who have no problem in attempting to enforce twisted idolatry
     
  18. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,618
    By the by what happened to all the Chicken 'The Sky Will Fall' Little celeb snowflakes who would move to Canada if the unthinkable happened?

    Didn't see any relocation trucks on the road or are they still packing?
     
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,934
    You are correct. You are not required to show any humanity, compassion or empathy at all. Some of us, however, feel that those are worthy traits.

    My grandparents showed up here as refugees from the aftermath of the Irish potato famine. They showed up without any visas or invitations, indeed with no guarantee they would be accepted at all. But the US did accept them, and they had two daughters. One of them was my mother.

    Most people in the US have a similar story. No, the US was not "required" to take them in. But I (and most Americans) are very glad that the US did - and we want that to continue.
     
  20. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,618
    Yes very worthy traits

    Very worthwhile putting them into action

    In dangerous situations however you may turn into the dead hero

    Dial back your showing off your excellent traits and consider your own safety before launching into action

    Sounds like a good deal for America accepting them

    However a potato famine would hardly be considered a risk to America with radical idiots fleeing the famine trying to infiltrate the country to cause harm
     
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,934
    No "hero" about it. Dead human, perhaps. Life is risky.
    You wouldn't know that listening to the rhetoric of the time. Irish were violent, lazy drunks who were always being arrested. "That's why they call it a paddy wagon!" Over half of the arrests in NYC during that time were of Irish. "Irish need not apply" was posted in employment ads, and sometimes expanded to "No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs" just to make it clear what they thought of Irish. Everyone knew that to walk into an Irish bar meant injury or worse. Benjamin Disraeli wrote that "The Irish hate our order, our civilization, our enterprising industry, our pure religion. . . . Their ideal of human felicity is an alternation of clannish broils and coarse idolatry. Their history describes an unbroken circle of bigotry and blood."

    In other words, they were the Mexicans and Muslims of their time.

    Fortunately, we were a better people back then, and welcomed them anyway. And we are all better off for doing that.
     
  22. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,485
    exactly...
    If you stood in any shopping mall and wanted to make the same sort of assessment who would you pick as being intent on harming you?

    The guys with a beard perhaps?
    The guys pretending to be Christian evangelists?

    or the child with an overly bulky jacket on....
    who?

    You see this is why the terrorists have won...
    Paranoia cripples every one...
     
  23. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Yes trump sign it today.

    1.5 years

    for a Phd at least another 2 years

    No they must reply there visa every couple of mouths, I think she said it was a J-1, I guess it would be because I distinctly remember them saying their daughter was a J-2.

    Once again trump signed it today.
    http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/polit...executive-action-on-refugees-extreme-vetting/
     

Share This Page