Can Trump stop me from being with my future wife ?

[smilesammich 10,727]

I am looking at things that happened, so hardly either applies.

Anyway we are where we are, nothing that anybody on here thinks will change things, what will be will be.

my bad, didn't know you hailed from a realm without historical paranoia and senseless execution. welcome to earth, don't mind the mess.

[JayJayH 546]

Sounds pretty effective to me. Out of everyone that applies according to the data in the articles, only a small amount get in. It's still a lot, but not as much at the start. It's also a very terrifying, confusing, and agonizing experience for some of them. I mean do you feel the vetting done to you was effective? Do you feel the vetting done to visitors is effective? Naturalized citizens?

So far none of the attacks have come from refugees. We've (and some other governments) have caught those pretending to be refugees wanting to do bad things so far. Other governments have potentially not been so great on that. That's a failure on their part they need to correct. The most recent attacks have all been from naturalized US citizens brought to the country at a young age, unless you count the SB attackers (I'd point to a big fat failure at CSC there, but point out one attempt out of the millions since the program was instituted is a positive statistic).

Trump has been asked what it means, I've even enquired with his supporters. The best he can do is jut repeat the word ''extreme'' multiple times for added emphasis. He hasn't got an honest clue and neither, do the supporters. They are being spoon fed and led to believe that there is no process or vetting at all. They don't know anything about the immigration system or legal process, because the average American can't be bothered to find out or doesn't care.

This is the same exact xenophobic attitude that has been brought against every refugee in our entire US history, Boiler. It's frankly getting old and pathetic.

What I think a lot of people don't understand when they make the false equivalence between Syrian refugees coming to the U.S. as opposed to the onslaught of refugees entering Europe is that in the U.S. we get to handpick who comes in, how many come in, and when they come in. Along with Canada, we're taking in Syrian refugees solely through UN quotas. You can't walk, drive, bike or swim here from the Middle East. So in addition to numbers, when Europe received Middle Eastern refugees, a lot of them are single, military aged men who have gone through no background checks and with questionable ID documents. When we take in UN quota refugees, they're more often than not families with most ID papers intact and verifiable..

When Sweden took in 180,000 Syrian refugees in 2015, their system collapsed and they experienced a hike in crime, assault and rape. Yes, that was related to the refugee crisis. It's also extremely difficult to avoid the fact that the barrage of rape cases in Germany was directly linked to the country taking in almost a million refugees from a culture with vastly different views of women (I know, I know, women still have it worse on tumblr than in the Middle East).

180,000 people is 2% of Sweden's population. A million people is 1.3% of Germany's population. 10,000 refugees is 0.003% of the U.S. population. Even if Clinton were to take in 65,000 Syrian refugees, that would average out to 1,300 people per state, and the quote would probably be taken from from the 24,000 Iraqi refugees we took in last year). To put that into perspective, if we settled 1,300 people in Montana, you'd still be 4x more likely to run into a black guy in Montana than a Syrian refugee. 10,000 is on average 200 people per state. Or 0.0005% of California's population.

That being said yuna628, I think it's dangerous to dismiss skepticism towards taking in Syrian refugees as "just good ol' xenophobia." Yes, there are those who are terrified of foreigners, and 10,000 sounds like . But the U.S. has never experienced unskilled mass immigration from the Middle East in the way Europe has - Failure to have honest debates, and dismissing the ensuing culture clash as "xenophobia" is what has fueled the rise of neo-fascism across Europe in recent decades. Neo-fascist political parties now form the second largest political parties in France, Germany, Sweden, Greece, Austria and a host of other countries. And they're not a reaction to Vietnamese in France, Indians in Britain, Chinese in Italy, Congoans in Belgium or Filipinos in Germany.

Edited October 13, 2016 by JayJayH

[yuna628 9,528]

Jay, it is xenophobia. Period. It's at a rampage in Europe (in some ways it never left since WWII only tampered down and laying in wait for the right opportunity), and its always been a threat in America.

[N-o-l-a 7,167]

Jay, it is xenophobia. Period. It's at a rampage in Europe (in some ways it never left since WWII only tampered down and laying in wait for the right opportunity)

For some it might be xenophobia, for others it might be the very rational and moderate idea that countries deserve sovereignty and that cultures deserve the right to preserve their identities. The later is pretty much all I've seen coming from Europeans.

[millefleur 5,035]

For some it might be xenophobia, for others it might be the very rational and moderate idea that countries deserve sovereignty and that cultures deserve the right to preserve their identities. The later is pretty much all I've seen coming from Europeans.

Japan is a very xenophobic country by the standard definition, but you hardly see anyone rushing to point fingers at them as a bad example and blame them for being so. Wonder why that is.

Edited October 13, 2016 by millefleur

[Umka36 781]

Because only Western countries can be xenophobic? While Asian countries are considered close minded?

[RandB 156]

To answer the OP, I'm pretty sure Trump brought his wife over on a K1 visa. Him banning the K1 would be hypocritical. Hehe.

[smilesammich 10,727]

i thought she came in on a work visa and then adjusted..

[Teddy B 17,251]

I thought she was working as a model while on a tourist visa. Did she file for the work visa after that?

[RandB 156]

I also read somewhere that she was staying in the US illegaly at one point. I don't know what's true. Maybe they didn't do the K1. Either way, his wife is an immigrant so he surely must know that not all immigrants are dangerous terrorists.

[smilesammich 10,727]

I thought she was working as a model while on a tourist visa. Did she file for the work visa after that?

maybe that was what actually happened, i dunno. but i'm pretty sure k1 wasn't it.

[millefleur 5,035]

Source: The complicated immigration history of Melania Trump: Tourist visas, then work visas

Melania Trump first entered the U.S. on a visitor visa in August 1996, Wildes wrote, and first obtained a work visa that October — the same month she posed with another woman in the nude shoot, according to Wildes. The Post on Wednesday corrected the initial story, saying the photographer had confirmed the 1996 date in an interview.

After that, Wildes wrote in the letter, Melania Trump obtained a series of four more one-year work visas because, at the time, one-year visas were all that were permitted under the U.S. agreement with Slovenia. She obtained a green card and became a lawful permanent resident in 2001, he said, applying as a model of “extraordinary ability.”

---

In her own interviews, Melania Trump has given a somewhat different account of her visa history. “I followed the law the way it’s supposed to be,” she said on MSNBC in February. “I never thought to stay here without papers. I had a visa. I traveled every few months back to the country to Slovenia, to stamp the visa.”

No K-1's so it seems. The part about traveling back and forth to "stamp the visa" seems pretty odd though for a "work visa."

[Rob L 3,811]

To answer the OP, I'm pretty sure Trump brought his wife over on a K1 visa. Him banning the K1 would be hypocritical. Hehe.

I am sure she had a green card before they met, her citzenship more recent.

[JayJayH 546]

Jay, it is xenophobia. Period. It's at a rampage in Europe (in some ways it never left since WWII only tampered down and laying in wait for the right opportunity), and its always been a threat in America.

It has absolutely nothing to do with real, legitimate concerns over sustainability, sure.

Dip me in racism and roll me in xenophobia, but I do find concerns in taking in hundreds of thousands of mostly unvetted, largely military aged single males from the contemporary Middle East.

I'm happy to take in 10,000 vetted Syrian refugees. I think that's humane. I'm not on board with the notion that demanding restrictions and sustainable regulation is "xenophobia."

From the xenophobic conservative media outlet known as PBS:

"After declaring that its welfare system was collapsing under the strain of up to 200,000 refugees, Sweden today became the latest European country to impose border controls. The nation has accepted more refugees per capita than any other country on the continent. But its appeals to other European nations to share the burden have been largely ignored."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/feeling-burden-of-migrant-crisis-sweden-imposes-border-controls/

Swedish "no-go zones" have largely been mocked by American media. But is a well-known phenomenon in left-leaning Scandinavian state media:

(I actually rely on left-leaning Scandinavian state-owned media to adjust for denial in U.S. media)

"Swedish police warns that Stockholm's main train station has become unsafe after being ‘taken over’ by dozens of Moroccan street children. The all-male migrant teen gangs are spreading terror in the centre of the Swedish capital, stealing, groping girls and assaulting security guards, according to Stockholm police."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3415477/Swedish-police-warn-Stockholm-s-main-police-station-overrun-migrant-teen-gangs-stealing-groping-girls.html

From the right-wing megaphone known as Politico:

"Over nine years, I witnessed the neighborhood become increasingly intolerant. Alcohol became unavailable in most shops and supermarkets; I heard stories of fanatics at the Comte des Flandres metro station who pressured women to wear the veil; Islamic bookshops proliferated, and it became impossible to buy a decent newspaper. With an unemployment rate of 30 percent, the streets were eerily empty until late in the morning. Nowhere was there a bar or café where white, black and brown people would mingle. Instead, I witnessed petty crime, aggression, and frustrated youths who spat at our girlfriends and called them “filthy whores.” If you made a remark, you were inevitably scolded and called a racist. There used to be Jewish shops on Chaussée de Gand, but these were terrorized by gangs of young kids and most closed their doors around 2008. Openly gay people were routinely intimidated, and also packed up their bags.

I finally left Molenbeek in 2014. It was not out of fear. The tipping point, I remember, was an encounter with a Salafist, who tried to convert me on my street. It boiled down to this: I could no longer stand to live in this despondent, destitute, fatalistic neighborhood."

http://www.politico.eu/article/molenbeek-broke-my-heart-radicalization-suburb-brussels-gentrification/

There is no reason for Trumpesque alarmism in the U.S.

Nor is there any good reason for willful denial either.

Edited October 19, 2016 by JayJayH

[Boiler 43,436]

They are just children fleeing from a war zone.