Trump’s ‘Travel Ban’ Countries Account For Only 8% of World’s Muslims

[fascinating123 38]

1 minute ago, Satisfied said:

Truly sorry for how this negatively affects your family.  As is often the case, a few bad people ruin it for the masses of good folk who don’t deserve it.  It seems unfair I know, but think how hard it must be to weed out the bad/dangerous folk from all the good ones.  It’s a tough job, I am sure, and I am sure that unless the ban is 100%, even then some riffraff will get thru.  Consider how much simpler it is to be an illegal/criminal when crossing borders.  Put up a good front and cover story, arrive on foreign soil, then disappear, never to be seen again until they decide to cause mayhem.  But those who come here legally and with no harmful intent, they are the ones who really suffer due to the intense scrutiny required.  It sux.

Well, I care more about protecting the innocent than catching the guilty. There are a lot of bad policies we could pursue if all we cared about was safety. Had this ban been in place in 2015, I'd have been forced to  a) leave the US to live in Yemen (or some potential country that my wife and I could both live in), b) put our lives on hold for several years, or c) move on and go our separate ways. And let me tell you, none of these options would have pleased me and I would not be sympathetic to anyone's justification of them.

 

For the record, I do not mean this to be an appeal to emotion. Rather, a simple recognition that policies have real consequences for real people, not abstract ones. They must be taken into account before stating the benefits (if any). This goes for every policy, not just immigration related ones. Far too often we implore officials to "do something" without thinking it through.

[Unidentified 2,930]

I think we also need to remember that our biggest terrorist threat is not coming from outside our country... They were born here. What are we going to do about that?

[fascinating123 38]

27 minutes ago, Unidentified said:

I think we also need to remember that our biggest terrorist threat is not coming from outside our country... They were born here. What are we going to do about that?

Your answer may be different, but what I do is recognize that we live in a risky world. There are steps one can take to lead a safer life, but there's never going to be 100% safety. Far worse to give ever-increasing power to a government that will certainly use it for mischief at some point (while occasionally using it in benevolent ways) than to take a small risk that someone may use freedom for ill (and conversely most will use for good).

 

Again, though. I understand not all agree.

 

[Ontarkie 13,960]

~~2 post removed for TOS Violation along with those that quoted. - Post Content intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a broad demographic or group of people identified by a unifying trait or characteristic (discrimination). For instance, racist or sexist content may be considered hate speech.~~

Edited July 13, 2018 by Ontarkie

[Unidentified 2,930]

Lol, I'm sorry. I guess I should have added a link to the research saying the exact thing. 

 

 

Edited July 12, 2018 by Unidentified

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

On 7/12/2018 at 1:18 PM, fascinating123 said:

Well, I care more about protecting the innocent than catching the guilty. There are a lot of bad policies we could pursue if all we cared about was safety. Had this ban been in place in 2015, I'd have been forced to  a) leave the US to live in Yemen (or some potential country that my wife and I could both live in), b) put our lives on hold for several years, or c) move on and go our separate ways. And let me tell you, none of these options would have pleased me and I would not be sympathetic to anyone's justification of them.

 

For the record, I do not mean this to be an appeal to emotion. Rather, a simple recognition that policies have real consequences for real people, not abstract ones. They must be taken into account before stating the benefits (if any). This goes for every policy, not just immigration related ones. Far too often we implore officials to "do something" without thinking it through.

Oh, you mean like every one of us here who has undergone the process?  

[Rob and Cheryl 56]

6 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

Oh, you mean like every one of us here who has undergone the process?  

There is no parallel to the experience most of us have had, what is being proposed is an indefinite ban based on your country.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Just now, Rob and Cheryl said:

There is no parallel to the experience most of us have had, what is being proposed is an indefinite ban based on your country.

Doesn’t matter.  I bolded the part that applies to every one of us.  And I am correct.

[Rob and Cheryl 56]

32 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

Doesn’t matter.  I bolded the part that applies to every one of us.  And I am correct.

You seem convinced that you are correct. The difference between an indefinite ban and a delay in processing is totally different. There are circumstances where a family is totally prevented from living here, but not based on nationality.

[fascinating123 38]

1 hour ago, Satisfied said:

Oh, you mean like every one of us here who has undergone the process?  

I take it your spouse is from one of these countries? Which one?

 

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

53 minutes ago, Rob and Cheryl said:

You seem convinced that you are correct. The difference between an indefinite ban and a delay in processing is totally different. There are circumstances where a family is totally prevented from living here, but not based on nationality.

It's a rocky road, immigration.  Even the smoothest of journeys experience speed bumps.  If members of a country are banned from coming here, then the two options are not to get involved with someone from the banned country, otherwise be willing to relocate there.

 

People do the latter even with countries not on a banned list. 

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 minutes ago, fascinating123 said:

I take it your spouse is from one of these countries? Which one?

 

 

Nope.  But even without a ban, we faced almost 2 years of separation.  She was prohibited from visiting the US during the process.  I was able to visit her country, but only once.

 

The three options you listed, we considered.  As does everyone in the process.  That's all I was saying.  Had I desired a spouse from a banned country. I would probably have gone with a) or c), but most likely c), since LD relationships are not easy to sustain.

[fascinating123 38]

6 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

It's a rocky road, immigration.  Even the smoothest of journeys experience speed bumps.  If members of a country are banned from coming here, then the two options are not to get involved with someone from the banned country, otherwise be willing to relocate there.

 

People do the latter even with countries not on a banned list. 

 

I'd be more willing to relocate there if my stolen tax dollars weren't being used to bomb it to kingdom come.

 

The solution could be, of course, to not have blanket bans, but case by case bans of specific people. And certainly not to claim that banning my SO from the country is supposed to be for my well being. Because it's not.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

8 minutes ago, fascinating123 said:

I'd be more willing to relocate there if my stolen tax dollars weren't being used to bomb it to kingdom come.

 

The solution could be, of course, to not have blanket bans, but case by case bans of specific people. And certainly not to claim that banning my SO from the country is supposed to be for my well being. Because it's not.

Who stole your tax dollars? Did you report this to the IRS?

[fascinating123 38]

5 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

Nope.  But even without a ban, we faced almost 2 years of separation.  She was prohibited from visiting the US during the process.  I was able to visit her country, but only once.

 

The three options you listed, we considered.  As does everyone in the process.  That's all I was saying.  Had I desired a spouse from a banned country. I would probably have gone with a) or c), but most likely c), since LD relationships are not easy to sustain.

 

First off, I don't think the process should be as onerous as it is. But, there is a difference between knowing that there is in fact an end on the horizon, and not knowing that there is at all, perhaps ever. As Thomas Sowell put it "there's nothing as permanent as a temporary government program". Asking people to be ok with the ban is an undue imposition.

 

Sure, long distance is tough, but I've known people who make it work. Whether due to work assignments, medical school, etc. They make it work because they know at some point they'll be together. There's a difference between circumstance and unnecessary government red tape or policy. The ban isn't needed.

 

So, in short, I don't support the ban. I don't care if that makes me anti-American because I don't support the president. I don't and I didn't support the last one. Nor any for a long time.