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

[fascinating123 38]

16 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

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

I unfortunately opened an off topic theme, but in short: all taxation is theft. I don't expect that to be popular opinion here or anywhere though. If desired, we can discuss in a more appropriate venue.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

I'm with you on thinking the ban is silly.  Unfortunately, it will take years to know if it made any positive changes at all (which I doubt), or whether it just caused people to suffer.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 minute ago, fascinating123 said:

I unfortunately opened an off topic theme, but in short: all taxation is theft. I don't expect that to be popular opinion here or anywhere though. If desired, we can discuss in a more appropriate venue.

While I try to reduce the taxes I owe, I also understand they are necessary.  I'd prefer to not have to pave my own roads or build my own schools.

 

[Rob and Cheryl 56]

1 hour ago, fascinating123 said:

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

 

 

My spouse? An immigrant from Canada.

[fascinating123 38]

44 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

While I try to reduce the taxes I owe, I also understand they are necessary.  I'd prefer to not have to pave my own roads or build my own schools.

 

I don't grow my own food nor did I build my car or my home, yet those things weren't done by the state. You could still have your roads and schools. They'd be done much better too.

11 minutes ago, Rob and Cheryl said:

My spouse? An immigrant from Canada.

Which I take it, is not part of the ban. In other words, you're not impacted in any way, no skin in the game here.

[Rob and Cheryl 56]

10 minutes ago, fascinating123 said:

I don't grow my own food nor did I build my car or my home, yet those things weren't done by the state. You could still have your roads and schools. They'd be done much better too.

Which I take it, is not part of the ban. In other words, you're not impacted in any way, no skin in the game here.

This is my country, I am natural born and proud of it. I have all the skin in the game of determining what our national policies and values are. Keeping families together is consistent with my values. Welcoming immigrants is consistent with my values. Welcoming people who do not look or think like me is consistent with my values. 

 

Thinking beyond how this impacts me to thinking about the future of my country is my skin in the game.  I realize not everyone thinks like me, and that's fine, But this is my choice.

 

 

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

3 minutes ago, Rob and Cheryl said:

This is my country, I am natural born and proud of it. I have all the skin in the game of determining what our national policies and values are. Keeping families together is consistent with my values. Welcoming immigrants is consistent with my values. Welcoming people who do not look or think like me is consistent with my values. 

 

Thinking beyond how this impacts me to thinking about the future of my country is my skin in the game.  I realize not everyone thinks like me, and that's fine, But this is my choice.

 

 

Finally I agree with you, not your beliefs but in your right to express them, without expecting me to adhere to them

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, fascinating123 said:

I don't grow my own food nor did I build my car or my home, yet those things weren't done by the state. You could still have your roads and schools. They'd be done much better too.

Which I take it, is not part of the ban. In other words, you're not impacted in any way, no skin in the game here.

No, the roads and schools would NOT be done better, because I could not afford them on my own.  Hence... taxes.  Take a little from everyone to benefit everyone.  It’s like socialism, that seems to be such a wanted thing here in CEHST.  

I don’t have skin in the game like you do, of course.  And as I said before, I am sorry if this ban impacts you (can’t remember if you said you and your wife are now separated due to the ban?) greatly.  But the reason for the ban is a good concept, even if it is poorly worded/handled and affects many who do not deserve it.  But it is impossible to keep out only the bad people from countries that have a known preponderance of terrorists.

[Dashinka 23,402]

16 hours 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.

How would you institute a ban on a specific individual if the country they are from is unwilling or unable to cooperate with necessary background information of the individuals?

[fascinating123 38]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

How would you institute a ban on a specific individual if the country they are from is unwilling or unable to cooperate with necessary background information of the individuals?

First off, it's nonsense to think we don't have assets and resources in these countries. It's very hard to hide from US intelligence radar if you're truly part of a multinational terrorist organization. 

 

Further, you have past data you can use as well. My wife for example had previously been in the US on both an A visa (her father worked as cultural attache in DC) and in a F1 student visa. No history of overstays. That doesn't fit the profile of someone coming to commit violent acts. Same with people with histories of coming to other countries and leaving without incident. 

 

This ban was not about safety. The US government already has a wide latitude to deny visas. 

[Unidentified 2,930]

Just now, fascinating123 said:

First off, it's nonsense to think we don't have assets and resources in these countries. It's very hard to hide from US intelligence radar if you're truly part of a multinational terrorist organization. 

 

Further, you have past data you can use as well. My wife for example had previously been in the US on both an A visa (her father worked as cultural attache in DC) and in a F1 student visa. No history of overstays. That doesn't fit the profile of someone coming to commit violent acts. Same with people with histories of coming to other countries and leaving without incident. 

 

This ban was not about safety. The US government already has a wide latitude to deny visas. 

2

No, not really. It used to be hard to hide but now it's not because of the way, for example, ISIS is recruiting people. They somehow manage to convince completely unlikely people to join them which makes it hard for US intelligence. If you're in the top yes, it's hard. But those people are not going to sacrifice themselves for "their cause".

 

Coming and going without issue has no bearing on any indications of whether or not someone is going to commit violent acts. 

 

The bad is about safety as they want to control who comes in. Just look at Europe, they have let everyone in and for a while, they had attack after attack. At one point it was almost weekly. 

[fascinating123 38]

40 minutes ago, Unidentified said:

No, not really. It used to be hard to hide but now it's not because of the way, for example, ISIS is recruiting people. They somehow manage to convince completely unlikely people to join them which makes it hard for US intelligence. If you're in the top yes, it's hard. But those people are not going to sacrifice themselves for "their cause".

 

Coming and going without issue has no bearing on any indications of whether or not someone is going to commit violent acts. 

 

The bad is about safety as they want to control who comes in. Just look at Europe, they have let everyone in and for a while, they had attack after attack. At one point it was almost weekly. 

We're not talking about Europe's system, which is far different. The US already controls who comes and goes quite tightly, despite what your nightly news tells you. 

 

What the ban does is make it so that with rare exception, people from these countries cannot enter the US even for reasonable, innocent purposes. Not because of processing times,or RFEs, or anything that everyone goes through. 

 

Again, the US government already can deny a visa for any reason. They didn't need a ban. 

[Unidentified 2,930]

11 minutes ago, fascinating123 said:

We're not talking about Europe's system, which is far different. The US already controls who comes and goes quite tightly, despite what your nightly news tells you. 

 

What the ban does is make it so that with rare exception, people from these countries cannot enter the US even for reasonable, innocent purposes. Not because of processing times,or RFEs, or anything that everyone goes through. 

 

Again, the US government already can deny a visa for any reason. They didn't need a ban. 

1

I know that we are not talking about Europe, but I am using them as an example of what happens when you have no control over who you are letting in. And I am not watching the news as I am too busy to even be near a TV at the moment. This is based on common sense thinking (cause and effect).

 

I am not arguing with you that the ban arbitrarily bans innocent people as well. But your logic about what type of traveler who is more likely to commit a violent crime was flawed. 

 

I know that I mentioned earlier that I was in favor of checking each individual more thoroughly before receiving a visa (100% to social media etc). Like someone before me mentioned: how can we achieve this if the countries they are coming from are not willing to co-operate? 

Edited July 17, 2018 by Unidentified

[fascinating123 38]

19 minutes ago, Unidentified said:

I know that we are not talking about Europe, but I am using them as an example of what happens when you have no control over who you are letting in. And I am not watching the news as I am too busy to even be near a TV at the moment. This is based on common sense thinking (cause and effect).

 

I am not arguing with you that the ban arbitrarily bans innocent people as well. But your logic about what type of traveler who is more likely to commit a violent crime was flawed. 

 

I know that I mentioned earlier that I was in favor of checking each individual more thoroughly before receiving a visa (100% to social media etc). Like someone before me mentioned: how can we achieve this if the countries they are coming from are not willing to co-operate? 

If it were up to me, you'd have a thorough interview process for all visas for all countries and if you can't find anything negative you let them in. Anything else ends up going down the rabbit hole of us all living in padded cells with robot overlords feeding us cups of mush so we can spend cradle to grave in safety. 

 

There's an element of risk in life that I'm willing to accept for freedom. I'm afraid I might be alone here though. Which is fine, I don't intend to live here forever. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

31 minutes ago, Unidentified said:

I know that we are not talking about Europe, but I am using them as an example of what happens when you have no control over who you are letting in. And I am not watching the news as I am too busy to even be near a TV at the moment. This is based on common sense thinking (cause and effect).

 

I am not arguing with you that the ban arbitrarily bans innocent people as well. But your logic about what type of traveler who is more likely to commit a violent crime was flawed. 

 

I know that I mentioned earlier that I was in favor of checking each individual more thoroughly before receiving a visa (100% to social media etc). Like someone before me mentioned: how can we achieve this if the countries they are coming from are not willing to co-operate? 

You do realize that a true terrorist would never have a social media account, right?  Or even if they did, it would be cleverly done so as not ot appear “abnormal”.  Those who wish to do us harm are not stupid, generally.  Brutal perhaps, maybe even vicious.  But not stupid.