MEGATHREAD- What does a Trump Presidency mean for visas? (merged)

[Marco&Bettina 502]

10 minutes ago, Transborderwife said:

Muslim is a religion, nazism isn't.  

Why, because their "god" was already on earth? Same difference.

[Transborderwife 4,666]

Just now, Marco&Bettina said:

Why, because their "god" was already on earth? Same difference.

I'm saying in a rights and differences way, as per the constitution people have a right to worship as muslims

[sarahandyunus 133]

Just now, N-o-l-a said:

 

No, not a list, but we are talking about additional vetting of intending immigrants, which is a good idea.  

 

 

 

Yeah, I have no problem with vetting - especially with the political situation in Turkey atm - I'm sure additional checks are being made / should be made. 

 

Turkey lists religion on ID cards as well and Islam is the default - you actually have to go to court and pay to change it to 'No religion'. Therefore, he'd definitely end up on a list despite a clean background  And I worry about what would be done with a list like that in the future (aka government check ins all the time or something)

 

 

[Marco&Bettina 502]

2 minutes ago, Transborderwife said:

I'm saying in a rights and differences way, as per the constitution people have a right to worship as muslims

Until a President comes along and changes all the rules, which is what he's doing. Nevertheless (and I am a Trump opposer, mind you), no one's right to practice Islam is being put in jeopardy with this. They obviously will word it how they see fit, but what they are proposing (hasn't happened yet as the EO is still in draft) is banning people from those countries from coming in and having any immigration benefit processing ceased, at least temporarily. Like it or not, the Pres can do that.

[Dutchster 1,106]

I agree with additional vetting as long as terrorism is still strong when it comes to countries of high concern. Making sure those who migrate never had any ties or contact with IS, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban etc. With the open borders in Europe, it's easy for them to send their soldiers to attack innocent people. I never meant to offense anyone when I used to ''Wow okay, calm down Hitler 2.0'' as Trump particularly likes to blame and point fingers to the Islamic culture.

[KierenHby 897]

52 minutes ago, sarahandyunus said:

So, you think that my husband who is Muslim by default as he is Turkish (but does not practice and never has) should be on some sort of list as a suspect despite having no criminal background at all. Pretty fair.  

Suspicions come from bad acts by bad people. All muslims aren't terrorists, but all (most?) terror acts are committed by, or in the name of, Islam. That means, politically speaking, anyone associated with islam is a suspect to begin with. It then comes down to each individual to remove doubts; the US is a paranoid society to begin with, like it or not. 

[Marco&Bettina 502]

14 minutes ago, KierenHby said:

Suspicions come from bad acts by bad people. All muslims aren't terrorists, but all (most?) terror acts are committed by, or in the name of, Islam. That means, politically speaking, anyone associated with islam is a suspect to begin with. It then comes down to each individual to remove doubts; the US is a paranoid society to begin with, like it or not. 

Depends on your definition of terrorism. The OKC bomber was not muslim. Therefore, the media did not call it an act of terrorism. But it was. Don't let the media feed you and tell you what is and what is not terrorism. The kid that killed 9 black members of a black church in South Carolina also committed an act of terrorism but you certainly won't hear the media calling it that. Instead they focused it on race, which it most certainly was. But does that not also make it terrorism?

 

Additionally, this country is a profiling country. I have certainly been profiled by police for many years multiple times simply because of the color of my skin. I have been profiled less when I walk around with my white wife.

 

Adding, the Columbine shooting. The Colorado movie theater shooting.... I could go on for days. Acts of terrorism not classified as such by the media or government simply because they were not done by Muslims.

Edited January 26, 2017 by Marco&Bettina

[Ahmed & Amy 291]

As a women who converted into Islam and married a Muslim Egyptian, I 100% support protecting our (American) boarders and strengthening our immigration with tighter security, but not for only one religion or region; it should be mandatory for all. 

 

MENA countries for years have been placed under AP and automatically receive extra or more thorough (so I've heard) security checks. There are extremists in every religion and culture, as well as extremists from those who consider themselves non religious, atheists, and agnostics. To pinpoint only one religion is wrong and unfair and goes completely against American values and the Constitution.

 

To sit here and say that majority of attacks have been by people who claimed they were from Islam is completely incorrect.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-alnatour/muslims-are-not-terrorist_b_8718000.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-muslims-carried-out-more-than-90-of-all-terrorist-attacks-in-america/5333619

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-terrorists-muslims-it-s-not-even-close.html

http://www.vox.com/2015/11/23/9765718/domestic-terrorism-threat

 

My two sons are Roman Catholic, my ex relatives are Roman catholic, my parents and my family are a mix of Christian, Jewish, and Atheist, and yet, we all get along, talk to one another and respect one another religious views/opinions or lack of belief in religion. I am lucky to have come from such an open minded family that respects one another beliefs, as we do not believe that this (religion or Islam) is the root cause of terrorism. Many factors cause terrorism, and none justify the action. But all in all it isn't caused by just one religion or belief.

 

I do believe that we should be more cautious and careful on who comes into America, but we can do that without forbidding an entire country or religion.

Edited January 26, 2017 by Ahmed & Amy

[Ihavequestions 419]

1 hour ago, Dutchster said:

I agree with additional vetting as long as terrorism is still strong when it comes to countries of high concern. Making sure those who migrate never had any ties or contact with IS, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban etc. With the open borders in Europe, it's easy for them to send their soldiers to attack innocent people. 

The "bad guys" have been printing fraudulent passports for a long time. How does the US government "make sure" when the passport is fake, or when a country is so war-torn official records don't exist anymore?

[Boiler 43,619]

4 minutes ago, Ihavequestions said:

The "bad guys" have been printing fraudulent passports for a long time. How does the US government "make sure" when the passport is fake, or when a country is so war-torn official records don't exist anymore?

I think that is what many have been wondering, those very questions have been asked. Seems smoke and mirrors. Not everything is on line.

 

The last California incident, did not take very long for the Press to come up with her background but she had passed a Security Clearance.

[Dutchster 1,106]

I thought passports have some kind of mark so that they can't be faked? Apparently it can if I read this.

[Boiler 43,619]

Lots of places where you can buy a real passport, the information on it is fake,

[KierenHby 897]

2 hours ago, Marco&Bettina said:

Depends on your definition of terrorism. The OKC bomber was not muslim. Therefore, the media did not call it an act of terrorism. But it was. Don't let the media feed you and tell you what is and what is not terrorism. The kid that killed 9 black members of a black church in South Carolina also committed an act of terrorism but you certainly won't hear the media calling it that. Instead they focused it on race, which it most certainly was. But does that not also make it terrorism?

The definition of terrorism will always be debated. The media has a role to play, but yeah, certain media outlets feed 'word puzzles', partly dictated by the makeup of their audience. 

 

Each US incident brings about a debate about whether to refer it as terrorism (Boston marathon).. domestic extremism (Oklahoma City).. an act of a lunatic (Columbine).. hate crime (SC church).. etc etc. 

[Ahmed & Amy 291]

1 hour ago, Ihavequestions said:

The "bad guys" have been printing fraudulent passports for a long time. How does the US government "make sure" when the passport is fake, or when a country is so war-torn official records don't exist anymore?

 

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

I think that is what many have been wondering, those very questions have been asked. Seems smoke and mirrors. Not everything is on line.

 

The last California incident, did not take very long for the Press to come up with her background but she had passed a Security Clearance.

I believe we all know that the information can be faked on a passport. But shouldn't this be exactly something the government should work on to prevent? I'm sure with the advanced technology the government has, and with it's many top secret r & d programs, there must be something that they can come up with that can be used on US passports to prevent counterfeit ones being used. You'd think?! 

[Marco&Bettina 502]

2 minutes ago, KierenHby said:

The definition of terrorism will always be debated. The media has a role to play, but yeah, certain media outlets feed 'word puzzles', partly dictated by the makeup of their audience. 

 

Each US incident brings about a debate about whether to refer it as terrorism (Boston marathon).. domestic extremism (Oklahoma City).. an act of a lunatic (Columbine).. hate crime (SC church).. etc etc. 

They should all be considered terrorism because "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians."