DansDeals.com Forums

DansDeals Forum => Just Shmooze => Topic started by: lubaby on January 28, 2017, 06:28:11 PM

Title: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: lubaby on January 28, 2017, 06:28:11 PM
theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/28/trump-immigration-ban-syria-muslims-reaction-lawsuits
Title: Re: Trump banning Muslims entry into the US
Post by: george on January 28, 2017, 06:40:44 PM
The ban is not only on Muslims, it is on nationals of 7 nations that are majority Muslim. So the thousands of Jews that are in Iran currently cannot come to the U.S.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: KidOOO on January 28, 2017, 07:08:25 PM
CNN is saying the ban applies even on permanent residents of the US (green card holders) that's surprising
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: grodnoking on January 28, 2017, 07:13:53 PM
The ban is not only on Muslims, it is on nationals of 7 nations that are majority Muslim. So the thousands of Jews that are in Iran currently cannot come to the U.S.
Prioritizes refugee claims on the basis of religious persecution, so long as the applicant belongs to a religion that is a minority in their country of origin.

Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: ilherman on January 28, 2017, 07:54:01 PM
1. This should be moved to JS.

2. Kudos to Trump for taking the courage to keep us safe.

3. Shame on the world for retaliating now and not saying anything about the fact that 16 countries deny entry to Israeli citizens.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: htg123 on January 28, 2017, 08:00:14 PM
Even though parts of this are good, The way it's being implemented is silly. It shouldn't have affected passengers in transit, and especially not to green card holders.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: Menachem613 on January 28, 2017, 08:07:15 PM
Why aren't Saudis being banned?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 28, 2017, 08:13:30 PM
Why aren't Saudis being banned?
Maybe because he has a business interest there?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: Alexsei on January 28, 2017, 08:43:17 PM
Why aren't Saudis being banned?
Freedom Tower
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: Alexsei on January 28, 2017, 08:45:51 PM
Aeroplan waiving change fees for banned travelers

http://dcta.boardingarea.com/2017/01/aeroplan-waiving-change-fees-for-banned-travellers/
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: Ergel on January 28, 2017, 08:45:59 PM
Even though parts of this are good,
Not sure ifi agree with this
Quote
The way it's being implemented is silly. It shouldn't have affected passengers in transit, and especially not to green card holders.
But this is clear
And dual citizens. I have a friend here in yyz who is a Canadian citizen but born in Iran. He's not allowed to do to the States. Crazy
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: aygart on January 28, 2017, 08:46:25 PM
Why aren't Saudis being banned?
the same reason they aren't banned from Qatar Jordan Egypt and other Muslim countries which are stale and not terrorist states. Even Lebanon isn't included.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: yuneeq on January 28, 2017, 08:49:09 PM
Not sure ifi agree with thisBut this is clear
And dual citizens. I have a friend here in yyz who is a Canadian citizen but born in Iran. He's not allowed to do to the States. Crazy

I thought that religious minorities will still be allowed to enter the US?
In that case your friend should be fine.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: Menachem613 on January 28, 2017, 08:50:00 PM
9/11 hijackers were almost all Saudis.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: chff on January 28, 2017, 08:50:17 PM
States vs Trump
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: aygart on January 28, 2017, 09:01:54 PM
CNN is saying the ban applies even on permanent residents of the US (green card holders) that's surprising
+1 this does seem overboard.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: KidOOO on January 28, 2017, 09:09:38 PM
Not sure ifi agree with thisBut this is clear
And dual citizens. I have a friend here in yyz who is a Canadian citizen but born in Iran. He's not allowed to do to the States. Crazy
Source?

(That it applies to dual citizens)

Edit: found it in WSJ, how would that work though, when a Canadian enters the US and presents his Canadian passport, how would they know he has another one?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: yuneeq on January 28, 2017, 09:44:41 PM
Source?

(That it applies to dual citizens)

Edit: found it in WSJ, how would that work though, when a Canadian enters the US and presents his Canadian passport, how would they know he has another one?

https://www.theatlantic.com/please-support-us/?next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlantic.com%2Fnews%2Farchive%2F2017%2F01%2Ftrump-immigration-order-muslims%2F514844%2F#seen
His friend will be allowed to enter because the ban only applies to Muslims and not religious minorities.
However the ban does apply to Muslims with dual citizenship.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 28, 2017, 10:03:06 PM
Why aren't Saudis being banned?
the same reason they aren't banned from Qatar Jordan Egypt and other Muslim countries which are stale and not terrorist states. Even Lebanon isn't included.
9/11 hijackers were almost all Saudis.
Lets not bring facts into this discussion.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: yuneeq on January 28, 2017, 10:13:00 PM
This isn't why Saudis aren't on the list 
Hint: it follows the Obama administrations classification of countries of "concern". 

https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-administration-made-the-muslim-ban-possible-and-the-media-wont-tell-you/
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: KidOOO on January 28, 2017, 10:16:06 PM
+1 this does seem overboard.

They seems to have partially walked back the green card ban, it is now being reported green card holders can get a waiver

The dual citizenship thing seems like mis-information to me. A Canadian citizen, for example, can enter the US with his Canadian passport with no need to reference his other passport AFAIK
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: aygart on January 28, 2017, 10:23:34 PM
Lets not bring facts into this discussion.
They have plenty of issues among their citizenry, but to compare them to the seven included is what would be ignoring facts.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: yuneeq on January 28, 2017, 10:26:47 PM
They seems to have partially walked back the green card ban, it is now being reported green card holders can get a waiver

The dual citizenship thing seems like mis-information to me. A Canadian citizen, for example, can enter the US with his Canadian passport with no need to reference his other passport AFAIK

I provided a link above proving that you're wrong.
If you have dual citizenship, Canada and Sudan, you won't be allowed entry to the US if you're Muslim.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: KidOOO on January 28, 2017, 10:35:25 PM
I provided a link above proving that you're wrong.
If you have dual citizenship, Canada and Sudan, you won't be allowed entry to the US if you're Muslim.
If a ban cannot be enforced it's not much of a ban. How exactly would they know if someone is Muslim? Or if he is even a national of a 2nd Country for that purpose?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: yuneeq on January 28, 2017, 10:38:36 PM
If a ban cannot be enforced it's not much of a ban. How exactly would they know if someone is Muslim? Or if he is even a national of a 2nd Country for that purpose?

1. Prove that you're not a Muslim
2. Your passport would probably state your birthplace
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: KidOOO on January 28, 2017, 10:40:48 PM
How would one go about proving he is a Muslim or not ?

Your second point I agree with, that would indicate the person is probably a national of that country as well
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: Menachem613 on January 28, 2017, 11:18:51 PM
How would one go about proving he is a Muslim or not ?

Your second point I agree with, that would indicate the person is probably a national of that country as well

Ask the person to draw a pic of Muhammad.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: sky121 on January 28, 2017, 11:48:21 PM
I'm curious. Are most people here 100% for or against this?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: yuds70 on January 28, 2017, 11:51:45 PM
I'm curious. Are most people here 100% for or against this?
This calls for a poll
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: cholent on January 29, 2017, 12:07:44 AM
I'm curious. Are most people here 100% for or against this?
Does it have to be 100% one way or another?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: sky121 on January 29, 2017, 12:08:43 AM
Does it have to be 100% one way or another?
No. I'm just curious if there are those who are.  When someone else create a poll I'd add more options.  :)
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: mgarfin on January 29, 2017, 12:38:46 AM
1. This should be moved to JS.

2. Kudos to Trump for taking the courage to keep us safe.

3. Shame on the world for retaliating now and not saying anything about the fact that 16 countries deny entry to Israeli citizens.

As you being one of the big defender's of trump I was wondering where u disappeared, bh your back.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: ilherman on January 29, 2017, 12:52:43 AM
From a legal standpoint, a federal judge can overturn an executive order from the POTUS?

In any case I have an inside feeling that if the Trump administration is not going to do any revisions on this order this is not going to end very pretty.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: churnbabychurn on January 29, 2017, 12:59:15 AM
From a legal standpoint, a federal judge can overturn an executive order from the POTUS?

In any case I have an inside feeling that if the Trump administration is not going to do any revisions on this order this is not going to end very pretty.
Yes, it's called checks and balances. It makes this country great.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: yuneeq on January 29, 2017, 01:00:12 AM
How would one go about proving he is a Muslim or not ?

Apparently- "Under federal law, the executive branch is expressly required to take religion into account in determining who is granted asylum. Under the provision governing asylum (section 1158 of Title 8, U.S. Code), an alien applying for admission must establish that … religion [among other things] … was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/427262/refugee-religious-test-shameful-and-not-american-except-federal-law-requires-it-andrew
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: yuneeq on January 29, 2017, 01:15:24 AM
I am pro this executive order. Trump was elected to keep America safe and not worry about the PC nonsense, and this all is part of it. If you are against this, were you outraged when Obama administration did the same thing to Iraqi refugees in 2011?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: aygart on January 29, 2017, 01:35:15 AM
I am pro this executive order. Trump was elected to keep America safe and not worry about the PC nonsense, and this all is part of it. If you are against this, were you outraged when Obama administration did the same thing to Iraqi refugees in 2011?
Did he include those who already had visas or green cards?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: yuneeq on January 29, 2017, 01:47:18 AM
Did he include those who already had visas or green cards?

It seems like the administration wasn't clear in the beginning and caused confusion though now it's been clarified that green card holders can come in but might require additional screening.
Not sure about vida holders though.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: KidOOO on January 29, 2017, 02:30:20 AM
It seems like the administration wasn't clear in the beginning and caused confusion though now it's been clarified that green card holders can come in but might require additional screening.
Not sure about vida holders though.
Green card ban made no sense. Ban on already approved visas makes a little more sense, but still odd. I think judge order to allow anyone who is already here / on the way is the right thing.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: thaber on January 29, 2017, 03:16:02 AM
Ban on any religion gets me nervous,  I won't deny that. 
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 29, 2017, 03:59:27 AM
Ban on any religion gets me nervous,  I won't deny that.
Why? You are probably not next on the list.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: mmgfarb on January 29, 2017, 04:03:22 AM
Why? You are probably not next on the list.
Where does the list end though?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: thaber on January 29, 2017, 04:04:57 AM
Why? You are probably not next on the list.
That wasn't my concern.  It's fundamentally not American,  and not in the interest of religious liberties,  which do affect me. As an aside,  I don't see how it would work 
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 29, 2017, 04:09:57 AM
Where does the list end though?
That's not important. The ignorance comes from thinking you are safe.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: yuneeq on January 29, 2017, 06:39:22 AM
That wasn't my concern.  It's fundamentally not American,  and not in the interest of religious liberties,  which do affect me. As an aside,  I don't see how it would work

American law already distinguishes been religions when granting refugee status. So I'm not sure that makes Trumps or obamas actions less American. 
I also didn't know non-citizens were afforded religious liberties or rights.
It's a privilege to visit our country not a right!
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: zh cohen on January 29, 2017, 09:23:05 AM
Ban on any religion gets me nervous,  I won't deny that.

There is no ban on religion!!! There is a (3 month) ban on people from countries that the Obama administration declared most likely to be havens for terror.

There is plenty to complain about with this EO, without making stuff up. Including green card holders (against the recommendation of Homeland security), implementation, and not getting any legal advice on how to do it properly are all valid complaints. Screaming "UNAMERICAN" and "Muslim ban" just discredits valid complaints.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 29, 2017, 09:30:04 AM
Didn't Trump complain about Obamas abuse of EO's?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: zh cohen on January 29, 2017, 09:35:11 AM
Didn't Trump complain about Obamas abuse of EO's?

I'm sure he did
Title: Re: Lyft
Post by: TimT on January 29, 2017, 09:40:18 AM
"Standing together" "defending our values"
 We stand with you, and are donating $1,000,000 (of your $$) over the next four years to the ACLU to defend our constitution.

Part of an anti-trump email I got from them.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: aygart on January 29, 2017, 09:43:25 AM
Didn't Trump complain about Obamas abuse of EO's?
This is something very specifically under the authority of the executivebranch
Title: Re: Re: Lyft
Post by: yuds70 on January 29, 2017, 09:45:07 AM
"Standing together" "defending our values"
 We stand with you, and are donating $1,000,000 (of your $$) over the next four years to the ACLU to defend our constitution.

Part of an anti-trump email I got from them.
+1. sounds ridiculous, almost random coming from a taxi service company.
Title: Re: Re: Lyft
Post by: TimT on January 29, 2017, 09:46:19 AM
+1. sounds ridiculous, almost random coming from a taxi service company.
Well, 99% of their drivers would have a problem getting back in.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: good sam on January 29, 2017, 09:57:14 AM
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156532225711/the-persuasion-filter-and-immigration

"Trump’s temporary immigration ban set a mental anchor in your brain that is frankly shocking. It will make his eventual permanent immigration plan (”extreme vetting”) look tame by comparison. The Persuasion Filter says that’s his strategy. Because that’s ALWAYS his strategy. He acts the same way every time. He wrote a book about it. He talks about it publicly. Then he does it right in front of us, over and over. And no matter how many times he does it, half the country still thinks the opening offer is the real one."
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: zh cohen on January 29, 2017, 10:02:22 AM
Didn't Trump complain about Obamas abuse of EO's?

1 - All process arguments are disingenuous

2 - Are you surprised that Donald Trump is not conservative?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: thaber on January 29, 2017, 10:08:30 AM
There is no ban on religion!!! There is a (3 month) ban on people from countries that the Obama administration declared most likely to be havens for terror.

There is plenty to complain about with this EO, without making stuff up. Including green card holders (against the recommendation of Homeland security), implementation, and not getting any legal advice on how to do it properly are all valid complaints. Screaming "UNAMERICAN" and "Muslim ban" just discredits valid complaints.
I was basing my comments on what was written here.  I had understood that there was a ban specifically on Muslims.  If incorrect I take it back.  DDF is my primary source of news.
American law already distinguishes been religions when granting refugee status. So I'm not sure that makes Trumps or obamas actions less American. 
I also didn't know non-citizens were afforded religious liberties or rights.
It's a privilege to visit our country not a right!
Refugees due to religious persecution obviously require distinguishing based on religion.  Very different than a proactive step based on religion.  And of course non citizens don't have the same rights as citizens,  and its a privilege to come here.  Tell that to the boatloads of Jewish refugees who were sent back to nazi Europe
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: iwlw2 on January 29, 2017, 10:19:33 AM
While reserving absolute judgment on this ban while waiting to see what comes next, I would like to make a couple of points. Firstly, I dont understand why this is such a major surprise (or at least the media make it out to be so) if Trump explicitly promised and campaigned about doing this. Which brings me to my second point. We have become so accustomed to politicians making empty promises, we are now shocked when they actually do what they said they would. And while we need to wait and see what form the overall immigration policy will take under the Trump administration (after all, this is a temporary action hopefully to give a chance to figure out how to fix what is clearly a broken immigration system vis a vis Muslim radicals getting in either as refugees or visitors or even green card holders), one thing that is definitely refreshing is having a President who actually hits the ground running and is getting right to work on implementing the agenda that clearly Americans voted for in electing him.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: yuneeq on January 29, 2017, 10:28:53 AM
I was basing my comments on what was written here.  I had understood that there was a ban specifically on Muslims.  If incorrect I take it back.  DDF is my primary source of news. Refugees due to religious persecution obviously require distinguishing based on religion.  Very different than a proactive step based on religion.  And of course non citizens don't have the same rights as citizens,  and its a privilege to come here.  Tell that to the boatloads of Jewish refugees who were sent back to nazi Europe

1. Most of the top Muslim countries are not banned entry. The ban is for specific countries that Obama named as countries of "concern".
2. Those boatloads of Jewish refugees would've been accepted nowadays under Trumps laws. So not sure what you're getting at.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: zh cohen on January 29, 2017, 10:35:32 AM
I was basing my comments on what was written here.  I had understood that there was a ban specifically on Muslims.  If incorrect I take it back.  DDF is my primary source of news.

I'm not blaming you, and chances are even if you did read "mainstream media" you would also have heard that there is a Muslim ban
Title: Re: Re: Lyft
Post by: LoLo on January 29, 2017, 11:02:13 AM
Interesting that the same people who say 'corporations aren't people' can say that 'corporations have values'.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: aygart on January 29, 2017, 11:03:09 AM
1. Most of the top Muslim countries are not banned entry. The ban is for specific countries that Obama named as countries of "concern".
2. Those boatloads of Jewish refugees would've been accepted nowadays under Trumps laws. So not sure what you're getting at.
1. fully agree
2. It only takes slight changes. The concept is similar.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: iwlw2 on January 29, 2017, 11:04:43 AM
And of course non citizens don't have the same rights as citizens,  and its a privilege to come here.  Tell that to the boatloads of Jewish refugees who were sent back to nazi Europe
Not to pick on you specifically, but this point is one that while I understand it somewhat, seems to be a bit stretched. Do you or anyone else really believe that just because someone in todays world is cracking down on Muslims that means theres only a short distance to cracking down on Jews??? Sure, halacha hi beyadua she'esav sonei leyaakov, and persecution of us Jews even in America is possible at any time and for any reason, but I think its a still a big leap to say that someone who is trying to restrict the people and religion that espouse hatred of Western civilization and values, not to mention Jews, might try to come after us by that same token. When Jewish people are committing mass murders in the name of their religion (misguided or not) and are clearly the greatest threat to normal, sane people living peaceful lives, than sure, Trump might make Jewish visits and immigration to America much more restrictive too. But I dont see how that follows automatically at all. You can't say that singling out one religion automatically means the increased liklihood of singling out other religions, if the religion being singled out is different than the rest by (at a minimum) containing within it large and identifiable segments that are liable to start shooting and blowing people up that they dont agree with......
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: thaber on January 29, 2017, 11:08:30 AM
Not to pick on you specifically, but this point is one that while I understand it somewhat, seems to be a bit stretched. Do you or anyone else really believe that just because someone in todays world is cracking down on Muslims that means theres only a short distance to cracking down on Jews??? Sure, halacha hi beyadua she'esav sonei leyaakov, and persecution of us Jews even in America is possible at any time and for any reason, but I think its a still a big leap to say that someone who is trying to restrict the people and religion that espouse hatred of Western civilization and values, not to mention Jews, might try to come after us by that same token. When Jewish people are committing mass murders in the name of their religion (misguided or not) and are clearly the greatest threat to normal, sane people living peaceful lives, than sure, Trump might make Jewish visits and immigration to America much more restrictive too. But I dont see how that follows automatically at all. You can't say that singling out one religion automatically means the increased liklihood of singling out other religions, if the religion being singled out is different than the rest by (at a minimum) containing within it large and identifiable segments that are liable to start shooting and blowing people up that they dont agree with......
To answer your question,  which I now understand may not be pertinent to the actual facts,  Yes,  I really believe that.  That's one of the beautiful things about the USA,  and it can be destroyed.  Rav Moshe speaks about this in several places. 
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: David Smith on January 29, 2017, 11:08:38 AM
Not to pick on you specifically, but this point is one that while I understand it somewhat, seems to be a bit stretched. Do you or anyone else really believe that just because someone in todays world is cracking down on Muslims that means theres only a short distance to cracking down on Jews??? Sure, halacha hi beyadua she'esav sonei leyaakov, and persecution of us Jews even in America is possible at any time and for any reason, but I think its a still a big leap to say that someone who is trying to restrict the people and religion that espouse hatred of Western civilization and values, not to mention Jews, might try to come after us by that same token. When Jewish people are committing mass murders in the name of their religion (misguided or not) and are clearly the greatest threat to normal, sane people living peaceful lives, than sure, Trump might make Jewish visits and immigration to America much more restrictive too. But I dont see how that follows automatically at all. You can't say that singling out one religion automatically means the increased liklihood of singling out other religions, if the religion being singled out is different than the rest by (at a minimum) containing within it large and identifiable segments that are liable to start shooting and blowing people up that they dont agree with......

Aka the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Title: Re: Re: Lyft
Post by: Yehuda57 on January 29, 2017, 11:09:25 AM
+1. sounds ridiculous, almost random coming from a taxi service company.
Not random at all. #Deleteuber was a number 1 trending topic yesterday, because Uber didn't join the taxi driver strike from NY airports yesterday, even advertising cheap rates (they did not implement a surge). This is lyfts way of capitalizing on people's outrage at Uber's capitalizing on a strike.
Title: Re: Re: Lyft
Post by: yuds70 on January 29, 2017, 11:14:33 AM
Not random at all. #Deleteuber was a number 1 trending topic yesterday, because Uber didn't join the taxi driver strike from NY airports yesterday, even advertising cheap rates (they did not implement a surge). This is lyfts way of capitalizing on people's outrage at Uber's capitalizing on a strike.
True true. It looks like it's all about business to me
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: iwlw2 on January 29, 2017, 11:20:36 AM
To answer your question,  which I now understand may not be pertinent to the actual facts,  Yes,  I really believe that.  That's one of the beautiful things about the USA,  and it can be destroyed.  Rav Moshe speaks about this in several places.
As I wrote, I certainly agree with that and it can happen at any time. I just dont see how this is logically and al pi derech hateva, in any way a precursor to that, since there is no logical or any other kind of leap automatically from Muslims to Jews. Care to explain further?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: iwlw2 on January 29, 2017, 11:22:00 AM

Huh?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: Ergel on January 29, 2017, 11:26:03 AM
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156532225711/the-persuasion-filter-and-immigration

"Trump’s temporary immigration ban set a mental anchor in your brain that is frankly shocking. It will make his eventual permanent immigration plan (”extreme vetting”) look tame by comparison. The Persuasion Filter says that’s his strategy. Because that’s ALWAYS his strategy. He acts the same way every time. He wrote a book about it. He talks about it publicly. Then he does it right in front of us, over and over. And no matter how many times he does it, half the country still thinks the opening offer is the real one."

Giving him way too much credit.

Besides, leave it Guliani to play his hand
http://mediamatters.org/video/2017/01/29/rudy-giuliani-brags-he-crafted-trumps-muslim-ban/215163
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: aygart on January 29, 2017, 11:26:29 AM
As I wrote, I certainly agree with that and it can happen at any time. I just dont see how this is logically and al pi derech hateva, in any way a precursor to that, since there is no logical or any other kind of leap automatically from Muslims to Jews. Care to explain further?
It is not a direct precursor in any way, but once religion is used in one way it can be used in another as well. Whenever there has been discrimination against a religion Jews have always eventually ended up on the receiving end of it. I mentioned this during the election as well. On the other hand, this is NOT directly a religion based order. It is based on countries known to be terrorist havens.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: Ergel on January 29, 2017, 11:30:21 AM
While reserving absolute judgment on this ban while waiting to see what comes next, I would like to make a couple of points. Firstly, I dont understand why this is such a major surprise (or at least the media make it out to be so) if Trump explicitly promised and campaigned about doing this. Which brings me to my second point. We have become so accustomed to politicians making empty promises, we are now shocked when they actually do what they said they would. And while we need to wait and see what form the overall immigration policy will take under the Trump administration (after all, this is a temporary action hopefully to give a chance to figure out how to fix what is clearly a broken immigration system vis a vis Muslim radicals getting in either as refugees or visitors or even green card holders), one thing that is definitely refreshing is having a President who actually hits the ground running and is getting right to work on implementing the agenda that clearly Americans voted for in electing him.
Funny that the argument for Trump when he was making these crazy promises was that the MAM takes him literally but not seriously, but the public was taking him seriously but not literally. And now that he is actually doing these things, it's why are you surprised that he's following through on his promises
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: Ergel on January 29, 2017, 11:30:59 AM
It is not a direct precursor in any way, but once religion is used in one way it can be used in another as well. Whenever there has been discrimination against a religion Jews have always eventually ended up on the receiving end of it. I mentioned this during the election as well. On the other hand, this is NOT directly a religion based order. It is based on countries known to be terrorist havens.
Giving him way too much credit.

Besides, leave it Guliani to play his hand
http://mediamatters.org/video/2017/01/29/rudy-giuliani-brags-he-crafted-trumps-muslim-ban/215163
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: iwlw2 on January 29, 2017, 11:33:08 AM
It is not a direct precursor in any way, but once religion is used in one way it can be used in another as well. Whenever there has been discrimination against a religion Jews have always eventually ended up on the receiving end of it. I mentioned this during the election as well. On the other hand, this is NOT directly a religion based order. It is based on countries known to be terrorist havens.
I can see that point, however I would argue that given todays realities, the overwhelming reasons for using Islam as a basis for policy simply do not apply at all to other religions. So while I agree that perhaps it does give a bit more of an opening to those who are predisposed to hate Jews to try to use that as  a religion-based basis of policy, I dont think its significantly more than the already existing bias that they have and their desire to act on it, so Id rather take whatever possible increased safety and security may come about from this policy (whether the particular policy as constructed offers any increase is an open question and a different discussion).
As far as it not really being religion based rather country based, that just a fact which we dont want to let get in the way of this particular argument.... ;)
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: aygart on January 29, 2017, 11:34:31 AM

I am not sure what you are trying to say
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: iwlw2 on January 29, 2017, 11:34:52 AM
Funny that the argument for Trump when he was making these crazy promises was that the MAM takes him literally but not seriously, but the public was taking him seriously but not literally. And now that he is actually doing these things, it's why are you surprised that he's following through on his promises
As aygart correctly pointed out, this is not a Muslim ban and as such NOT a literal carrying out of what he said, but certainly a serious step.....
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: yuneeq on January 29, 2017, 11:38:19 AM
1. fully agree
2. It only takes slight changes. The concept is similar.

2. It requires huge changes and the concept is not similar.
Jew were religiously persecuted and would protected by the law.
AAnd no reason to fall for the slipper slope fallacy.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: aygart on January 29, 2017, 11:46:40 AM
2. It requires huge changes and the concept is not similar.
Jew were religiously persecuted and would protected by the law.
AAnd no reason to fall for the slipper slope fallacy.
It is not a question of slippery slope. It is that throughout history whatever religion was a criteria for anything at all it ended up being to the detriment of the Jews. Immigration is an especially sensitive part of it. In recent centuries it has affected Ashkenezim much more than Sefardim.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: David Smith on January 29, 2017, 11:51:39 AM
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: yuneeq on January 29, 2017, 11:55:43 AM
It is not a question of slippery slope. It is that throughout history whatever religion was a criteria for anything at all it ended up being to the detriment of the Jews. Immigration is an especially sensitive part of it. In recent centuries it has affected Ashkenezim much more than Sefardim.

Sefardim had a very hard time immigrating as well. There was no boats sent back, but many were denied entry and ended up traveling to South America, or were murdered in their home country for planning to leave.

Either way this policy has nothing to do with Jews so no reason to bring them into this discussion.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: David Smith on January 29, 2017, 11:59:27 AM



Either way this policy has nothing to do with Jews so no reason to bring them into this discussion.

+1

If you're against it, you should be against it because it's wrong or being implemented incorrectly or unfairly, not because it may have a negative impact to yourself. Thinking about how easily it can happen to you just puts things in a different light and helps you relate to those being wronged by a policy or action.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: aradisc on January 29, 2017, 12:01:34 PM
2. Those boatloads of Jewish refugees would've been accepted nowadays under Trumps laws. So not sure what you're getting at.
The belief that allowing heavily-vetted refugees in will bring in terrorists in disguise is a direct parallel to concerns about Jews being a "fifth column" in the 1940s. Replace "Nazi spy" with "terrorist": (click date at bottom of tweet to view articles) Invalid Tweet ID
AAnd no reason to fall for the slipper slope fallacy.

It's starting to get a little slippery out there: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/the-white-house-holocaust-horror/
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: aygart on January 29, 2017, 12:08:12 PM


The belief that allowing heavily-vetted refugees in will bring in terrorists in disguise is a direct parallel to concerns about Jews being a "fifth column" in the 1940s. Replace "Nazi spy" with "terrorist": (click date at bottom of tweet to view articles) Invalid Tweet ID
This is a ridiculous claim. His entire argument is that they are not properly vetted. This is very specifically a temporary measure in order to create what he considers to be adequate vetting procedures.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: thaber on January 29, 2017, 12:08:44 PM

As far as it not really being religion based rather country based, that just a fact which we dont want to let get in the way of this particular argument.... ;)
already been noted. this is theoretical (as of now)

Jew were religiously persecuted and would protected by the law.
currently...

A small tweak by this or a future administration would extend to other groups as well. (in our theoretical scenario)
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: David Smith on January 29, 2017, 12:12:22 PM
In a country where minorities aren't protected, don't bet on being looked at like the majority.

Even if you think that this can't affect you, you should still be able to empathize.
כי גרים הייתם במצרים
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: Ergel on January 29, 2017, 12:33:57 PM
Giving him way too much credit.

Besides, leave it Guliani to play his hand
http://mediamatters.org/video/2017/01/29/rudy-giuliani-brags-he-crafted-trumps-muslim-ban/215163
Why isn't this getting more publicity. The man claiming to be behind the ban said Trump asked for a Muslim ban
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: aygart on January 29, 2017, 12:41:23 PM
Why isn't this getting more publicity. The man claiming to be behind the ban said Trump asked for a Muslim ban
Of course that is how media mutters wants you to understand it. Once you think about what trump probably meant when he said a ban on Muslims and how this was implemented you will see that this is what it always meant. The whole thing is to block those from terror havens.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 29, 2017, 12:46:05 PM
This is something very specifically under the authority of the executivebranch
Wow I didn't know that. Try answering the question now.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: aygart on January 29, 2017, 12:50:41 PM
Wow I didn't know that. Try answering the question now.
What changed now?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 29, 2017, 12:51:44 PM
How many of these 7 countries does Trump do business with or have a hotel there?
How many terrorist acts have refugees from these 7 countries committed?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: cf on January 29, 2017, 12:54:18 PM
@realDonaldTrump

Christians in the Middle-East have been executed in large numbers. We cannot allow this horror to continue!
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 29, 2017, 12:55:38 PM
@realDonaldTrump

Christians in the Middle-East have been executed in large numbers. We cannot allow this horror to continue!
He didn't say "hugh" so we are not talking about millions. So what is "large"?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: cf on January 29, 2017, 12:57:12 PM
Isn't this like prioritizing Jewish refugees during WWII?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: cf on January 29, 2017, 12:58:28 PM
He didn't say "hugh" so we are not talking about millions. So what is "large"?
What difference does it make?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: aygart on January 29, 2017, 12:59:19 PM
How many of these 7 countries does Trump do business with or have a hotel there?
I would imagine none. That would be a very poor business decision.
How many terrorist acts have refugees from these 7 countries committed?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/15/politics/syrian-refugees-isis-screenings/

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36882445
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 29, 2017, 01:03:01 PM
I would imagine none. That would be a very poor business decision.http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/15/politics/syrian-refugees-isis-screenings/

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36882445
So the answer is zero to both questions. I guess I will just have to answer for you from now on since you refuse to.  :P
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 29, 2017, 01:03:56 PM
What difference does it make?
So if one is killed that is the same as 1000? There is no difference?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: David Smith on January 29, 2017, 01:04:49 PM
@realDonaldTrump

Christians in the Middle-East have been executed in large numbers. We cannot allow this horror to continue!
Muslims in the middle east have been executed in large numbers too. The world seems intent on allowing that horror to continue.

#AmericaFirst
#MAGA

Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: aygart on January 29, 2017, 01:06:17 PM
So the answer is zero to both questions. I guess I will just have to answer for you from now on since you refuse to. 
How is that a zero to the second
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 29, 2017, 01:08:22 PM
How is that a zero to the second
You took my question not to mean in the US?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: zh cohen on January 29, 2017, 01:10:41 PM
How many of these 7 countries does Trump do business with or have a hotel there?

This is a very stupid comment... (Nothing personal, I know you didn't make it up, and I doubt you believe the answers to this question mean anything)

The EO doesn't mention a single country. The list of countries is the one the Obama administration declared most likely to have terrorists come from.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: aygart on January 29, 2017, 01:14:37 PM
You took my question not to mean in the US?
Why is that relevant to whether or not there is more risk from those countries? Maybe the current vetting process here is better than in Europe, but nothing has been communicated to make us think it is.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 29, 2017, 01:21:06 PM
This is a very stupid comment... (Nothing personal, I know you didn't make it up, and I doubt you believe the answers to this question mean anything)

The EO doesn't mention a single country. The list of countries is the one the Obama administration declared most likely to have terrorists come from.
Actually it was a question?  :)
I did not look at the EO at all. It doesn't affect certain countries?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 29, 2017, 01:22:13 PM
Why is that relevant to whether or not there is more risk from those countries?
We can debate if it is relevant or not but the answer AFAIK is ZERO!
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: aygart on January 29, 2017, 01:27:21 PM
We can debate if it is relevant or not but the answer AFAIK is ZERO!
I consider the distinction irrelevant and therefore answered based on relevance. In the US it is zero.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 29, 2017, 01:28:55 PM
I consider the distinction irrelevant and therefore answered based on relevance. In the US it is zero.
We are making progress.  :)
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: David Smith on January 29, 2017, 01:34:12 PM
I consider the distinction irrelevant and therefore answered based on relevance. In the US it is zero.
Saying that drastic problems necessitate drastic solutions even when it means innocents being caught in the crossfire, and saying that the current procedures in place are failing miserably; is difficult to argue when the answer to that question is zero.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: iwlw2 on January 29, 2017, 01:34:20 PM
Actually it was a question?  :)
I did not look at the EO at all. It doesn't affect certain countries?
Actually looking at the EO might be a good place for you to start. According to those who have (quoted up thread), it does not mention specific countries but rather increases the restrictions placed by the Obama administration on countries likely to produce terror threats which is where the list came from. Next you might say that the Obama administration was careful to only include countries that Trump hasn't done business with, who knows?  :P
In any event though, while you may be able to come up with other countries that pose an existing terror threat from large segment of their citizenry, you do have to admit that the countries on this list kind of make up an all-star team in that category, no?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: iwlw2 on January 29, 2017, 01:36:51 PM
We are making progress.  :)
Please clarify a bit for me though, are you really completely discounting any and all terror threat from Muslim refugees given what has taken place in Europe, or just saying that you think this is an overreaction to that threat, because theres a big difference....
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: aygart on January 29, 2017, 01:40:14 PM
Actually looking at the EO might be a good place for you to start. According to those who have (quoted up thread), it does not mention specific countries but rather increases the restrictions placed by the Obama administration on countries likely to produce terror threats which is where the list came from. Next you might say that the Obama administration was careful to only include countries that Trump hasn't done business with, who knows? 
In any event though, while you may be able to come up with other countries that pose an existing terror threat from large segment of their citizenry, you do have to admit that the countries on this list kind of make up an all-star team in that category, no?

Please clarify a bit for me though, are you really completely discounting any and all terror threat from Muslim refugees given what has taken place in Europe, or just saying that you think this is an overreaction to that threat, because theres a big difference....
But CNN says.....
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: iwlw2 on January 29, 2017, 01:40:18 PM
Muslims in the middle east have been executed in large numbers too. The world seems intent on allowing that horror to continue.

#AmericaFirst
#MAGA
The "world" or at least the European liberal elites, seems intent on trying to export that horror to their own shores, something that masses of their own people seem unhappy with as evidenced by recent and predicted upcoming election results and the BREXIT vote. Just another symptom of close-minded liberal political-correctness run amok...... It only seems sensible for our president to try and protect our people from that eventuality....
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: iwlw2 on January 29, 2017, 01:41:03 PM
But CNN says.....
:) the very definition of fake news and alternate facts....  ;)
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: David Smith on January 29, 2017, 01:44:56 PM


The "world" or at least the European liberal elites, seems intent on trying to export that horror to their own shores, something that masses of their own people seem unhappy with as evidenced by recent and predicted upcoming election results and the BREXIT vote. Just another symptom of close-minded liberal political-correctness run amok...... It only seems sensible for our president to try and protect our people from that eventuality....

A) It's called importing, not exporting.

B) Mr. Trump seemed to have written and posted something on one of his social media accounts regarding the need to stop the horror in the Middle East. Do you agree or disagree with this sentiment?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: iwlw2 on January 29, 2017, 01:49:09 PM


B) Mr. Trump seemed to have written and posted something on one of his social media accounts regarding the need to stop the horror in the Middle East. Do you agree or disagree with this sentiment?
I dont think any decent human being would disagree with that sentiment, as always its a question of tactics....
But correct me if I'm wrong as I dont follow Mr. Trump on Twitter myself, but wasn't that in the context of allowing more Christian refugees from the Middle East to enter America? Would you agree or disagree with that sentiment?
Title: Re: Re: Lyft
Post by: grodnoking on January 29, 2017, 01:52:52 PM
+1. sounds ridiculous, almost random coming from a taxi service company.
Not really. They have to satiate their employees, who many (maybe even most) of them are immigrants. They probably couldn't care less but don't want their employees to strike like the cabbies did in nyc.
Edit: I see that many people said this before me.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: David Smith on January 29, 2017, 01:52:54 PM
I dont think any decent human being would disagree with that sentiment, as always its a question of tactics....
But correct me if I'm wrong as I dont follow Mr. Trump on Twitter myself, but wasn't that in the context of allowing more Christian refugees from the Middle East to enter America? Would you agree or disagree with that sentiment?
So we should allow people from troubled countries in the middle east in if their lives are endangered, or we should keep our borders closed to protect our best interests? I'm getting confused.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: iwlw2 on January 29, 2017, 01:56:56 PM
So we should allow people from troubled countries in the middle east in if their lives are endangered, or we should keep our borders closed to protect our best interests? I'm getting confused.
Actually its pretty straightforward so Ill try to make it really simple for you. We should absolutely allow people from troubled countries in the Middle East into our great country if their lives are endangered, however the primary interest of any country needs to be keeping their citizens safe and secure, so in the event that those refugees might endanger the country in some way, it's America first until we can determine a way to balance both. And if that means a temporary ban on everyone till we can figure it out, so be it.....
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: David Smith on January 29, 2017, 01:58:49 PM
Actually its pretty straightforward so Ill try to make it really simple for you. We should absolutely allow people from troubled countries in the Middle East into our great country if their lives are endangered, however the primary interest of any country needs to be keeping their citizens safe and secure, so in the event that those refugees might endanger the country in some way, it's America first until we can determine a way to balance both. And if that means a temporary ban on everyone till we can figure it out, so be it.....
In other words, you disagree with this guy. Don't blame you.
@realDonaldTrump

Christians in the Middle-East have been executed in large numbers. We cannot allow this horror to continue!
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: iwlw2 on January 29, 2017, 02:04:11 PM
In other words, you disagree with this guy. Don't blame you.
Now you're confusing me.... ;D
As I thought was clear, the sentiment everyone agrees with, and letting in Christian refugees does not seem to present any security risks so why not? It's only the Muslim ones who we need to worry about seeing as too many of their compatriots have a predilection for blowing themselves and other people up....
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 29, 2017, 02:04:48 PM
Please clarify a bit for me though, are you really completely discounting any and all terror threat from Muslim refugees given what has taken place in Europe, or just saying that you think this is an overreaction to that threat, because theres a big difference....
More than happy to clarify. Progress in terms that he actually answered a question. Has nothing to do with the question.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 29, 2017, 02:07:07 PM
But CNN says.....
...what? I was getting to many laughs from FOX to switch channels.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: iwlw2 on January 29, 2017, 02:07:58 PM
More than happy to clarify. Progress in terms that he actually answered a question. Has nothing to do with the question.
Maybe I missed it but where did you answer my question?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: aygart on January 29, 2017, 02:09:19 PM
More than happy to clarify. Progress in terms that he actually answered a question. Has nothing to do with the question.
the first one I answered immediately and the second one I answered with the answer I consider to be relevant immediately as well. That puts me two ahead of you.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 29, 2017, 02:10:21 PM
Maybe I missed it but where did you answer my question?
What was your question?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 29, 2017, 02:13:29 PM
Is Bibi for this ban?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: aygart on January 29, 2017, 02:15:06 PM
Is Bibi for this ban?
IIRC drudge had something saying that he praised it but I know nothing more than that
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: yuneeq on January 29, 2017, 02:15:30 PM
How many of these 7 countries does Trump do business with or have a hotel there?
How many terrorist acts have refugees from these 7 countries committed?

Ask Obama. He made the list of countries of "concern".
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 29, 2017, 02:17:21 PM
IIRC drudge had something saying that he praised it but I know nothing more than that
He better or no more aid.  :)
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: iwlw2 on January 29, 2017, 02:17:36 PM
What was your question?
If you really believe that there is no possible threat to the USA whatsoever in letting in any and all Muslim refugees given what has taken place in Europe?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 29, 2017, 02:17:56 PM
Ask Obama. He made the list of countries of "concern".
Might be sometime before I see him.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 29, 2017, 02:19:01 PM
If you really believe that there is no possible threat to the USA whatsoever in letting in any and all Muslim refugees given what has taken place in Europe?
There is a threat. I seen one study that puts it at 1/3.6 billion.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: iwlw2 on January 29, 2017, 02:26:36 PM
There is a threat. I seen one study that puts it at 1/3.6 billion.
Given that there are some 2 billion muslims in the world and even conservative estimates would say at least 2-3 million are radicalized, your numbers seem a little off.....
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 29, 2017, 02:39:37 PM
Given that there are some 2 billion muslims in the world and even conservative estimates would say at least 2-3 million are radicalized, your numbers seem a little off.....
Those were the odds of a terrorist act in this country by a refugee. Have no idea how they came up with that figure. Maybe they are using Trump math.  :)
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: zh cohen on January 29, 2017, 02:39:58 PM
Might be sometime before I see him.

It'll be another while before he moves back to Chicago...
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: chff on January 29, 2017, 02:44:43 PM
https://youtu.be/GF9B-9PH4qQ (https://youtu.be/GF9B-9PH4qQ)
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: iwlw2 on January 29, 2017, 02:47:13 PM
Those were the odds of a terrorist act in this country by a refugee. Have no idea how they came up with that figure. Maybe they are using Trump math.  :)
::) I guess so. Where di you see this study exactly?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 29, 2017, 02:54:54 PM
::) I guess so. Where di you see this study exactly?
https://www.cato.org/blog/five-reasons-congress-should-repeal-trumps-immigrant-refugee-ban
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 29, 2017, 03:01:26 PM
https://youtu.be/GF9B-9PH4qQ (https://youtu.be/GF9B-9PH4qQ)
Is this what make America great again looks like?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: iwlw2 on January 29, 2017, 03:17:41 PM
https://www.cato.org/blog/five-reasons-congress-should-repeal-trumps-immigrant-refugee-ban
Wow, I always knew you could skew numbers to say whatever you want, but this is something else. They are firstly going back to 1975, when of course terrorism was a major concern, and secondly including all tourists and refugees in their calculations; as if a tourist from Canada (!) or a refugee from Tibet (!!) are just as likely to commit a terrorist act, which obviously leads to those numbers. 'Nuff said.....
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 29, 2017, 03:27:32 PM
'Nuff said.....
Refugee's have three kills in how many years? That's a few days in Chicago. Maybe would should ban all from Chicago?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: iwlw2 on January 29, 2017, 03:35:25 PM
Refugee's have three kills in how many years? That's a few days in Chicago. Maybe would should ban all from Chicago?
honestly if there was a clearly identifiable group of people from chicago from whom the murderers were disproportionately coming from who were not already citizens which precludes our ability to get rid of them, Id be all for it.... :)
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: iwlw2 on January 29, 2017, 03:39:03 PM
Refugee's have three kills in how many years? That's a few days in Chicago. Maybe would should ban all from Chicago?
but the larger point is that you can get lost in statistics and make numbers say almost anything, I can't imagine that anyone who has been paying attention to events all over the world for the past few years could not reasonably conclude that there is clear and present danger to letting any Muslim who wants to come into your country in without a rigorous vetting process....
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: Yehuda57 on January 29, 2017, 04:01:33 PM
honestly if there was a clearly identifiable group of people from chicago from whom the murderers were disproportionately coming from who were not already citizens which precludes our ability to get rid of them, Id be all for it.... :)
Why don't you spell this out instead of weakly hiding this disgusting comment behind an emoji?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: Shmulie on January 29, 2017, 04:03:47 PM
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: Yehuda57 on January 29, 2017, 04:05:22 PM
The problem is that the text and the implementation are worlds apart.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: iwlw2 on January 29, 2017, 04:31:37 PM
Why don't you spell this out instead of weakly hiding this disgusting comment behind an emoji?
Not sure what you mean or what exactly you think I mean, do you know what I was responding to and what our conversation is about?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: cf on January 29, 2017, 04:46:45 PM
Refugee's have three kills in how many years? That's a few days in Chicago. Maybe would should ban all from Chicago?
You are proving trumps point now. We have enough of our own problems and we're not looking for more.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: aradisc on January 29, 2017, 04:54:45 PM
If you really believe that there is no possible threat to the USA whatsoever in letting in any and all Muslim refugees given what has taken place in Europe?

This is a straw man- no one is suggesting letting in any and all Muslim refugees. This is the current process for a refugee: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/11/20/infographic-screening-process-refugee-entry-united-states

Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: jj1000 on January 29, 2017, 04:59:57 PM
https://youtu.be/GF9B-9PH4qQ (https://youtu.be/GF9B-9PH4qQ)
Ok, so who's the frum guy?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: Zalc on January 29, 2017, 05:05:31 PM
Is Bibi for this ban?
Well, consider the fact that the countries on that list don't let Bibi, his citizens, or anyone with Israeli stamps in their passports across their borders (aside from Somalia - highly restricted visa)

I can see why he would approve...
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: Yehuda57 on January 29, 2017, 05:29:57 PM
Well, consider the fact that the countries on that list don't let Bibi, his citizens, or anyone with Israeli stamps in their passports across their borders (aside from Somalia - highly restricted visa)

I can see why he would approve...
Aha, so it is a retaliation thing? Or is it a racism thing comparible to those countries, and not a security measure?

Unless there is no connection or comparison.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: aygart on January 29, 2017, 06:26:53 PM
Aha, so it is a retaliation thing? Or is it a racism thing comparible to those countries, and not a security measure?

Unless there is no connection or comparison.
Trump is doing it as retaliation for them against Israel?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 29, 2017, 07:17:12 PM
honestly if there was a clearly identifiable group of people from chicago from whom the murderers were disproportionately coming from who were not already citizens which precludes our ability to get rid of them, Id be all for it.... :)
You mean like African Americans?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 29, 2017, 07:18:30 PM
Ok, so who's the frum guy?
You mean the self hating Jew?  ;)
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: zh cohen on January 29, 2017, 07:46:24 PM
Ok, so who's the frum guy?

And why isn't he covering his kids ears?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: jj1000 on January 29, 2017, 08:00:23 PM
You mean the self hating Jew?  ;)
I understand why a Jew would want to be there. Saw this on FB:

Quote
One of the most shameful incidents in US history is the refusal to accept Jewish refugees on the eve of and during World War II. At the time, people cited concerns that Nazi and Communist agents would sneak into the country disguised as refugees. Despite repeated claims of "never again" we are letting it happen again. President Trump's plan to deny safety to Syrian refugees fleeing ISIS and civil war is disgusting and will be universally condemned by the historians of the future.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 29, 2017, 08:12:08 PM
I understand why a Jew would want to be there.
I also understand why the child is holding a sign that says "refugees welcome".
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: iwlw2 on January 29, 2017, 08:18:49 PM
You mean like African Americans?
Actually I did not even mean that when I wrote it (although reading it now I can see why you might have thought so). My point simply was that when it comes to Muslim immigration there is an identifiable group of people who contain amongst them elements who pose a threat to us, and we are entitled to keep them out- entirely if necessary,  or at least until we can fashion a framework bye which we can eliminate the danger. I would not say that criteria applies absolutely to murders in Chicago, firstly there is no clearly identifiable group (and frankly despite what you thought I meant, I would not say African Americans are all part of the same group just because they share a skin color) that is overwhelmingly responsible, and even if there were being that they are citizens of this country, they are subject to the criminal justice system as opposed to simply just not letting them in. Whereas with Muslim immigrants, since as a group they clearly contain elements which are threatening, it would seem to in fact be obligatory to try to keep them out until we can ensure that no undesirable and dangerous ones are slipping in along with the rest. It's awful for the inncent ones who will suffer due to this, but we are not obligated to harm ourselves for their benefit. Capisce?
As for the various comparisons to Jews fleeing the Nazis, you might say that this is only with the benefit of hindsight, but the facts show that there was and is no danger posed to America by Jews, whereas we can unfortunately not say the same about Muslims.....
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: iwlw2 on January 29, 2017, 08:20:27 PM
This is a straw man- no one is suggesting letting in any and all Muslim refugees. This is the current process for a refugee: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/11/20/infographic-screening-process-refugee-entry-united-states
Yet not having proper and stringent screening procedures in place to weed out extremists has almost the same effect....
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 29, 2017, 08:25:50 PM
Actually I did not even mean that when I wrote it (although reading it now I can see why you might have thought so).
Fair enough.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: Yehuda57 on January 29, 2017, 08:51:39 PM
Actually I did not even mean that when I wrote it (although reading it now I can see why you might have thought so). My point simply was that when it comes to Muslim immigration there is an identifiable group of people who contain amongst them elements who pose a threat to us, and we are entitled to keep them out- entirely if necessary,  or at least until we can fashion a framework bye which we can eliminate the danger. I would not say that criteria applies absolutely to murders in Chicago, firstly there is no clearly identifiable group (and frankly despite what you thought I meant, I would not say African Americans are all part of the same group just because they share a skin color) that is overwhelmingly responsible, and even if there were being that they are citizens of this country, they are subject to the criminal justice system as opposed to simply just not letting them in. Whereas with Muslim immigrants, since as a group they clearly contain elements which are threatening, it would seem to in fact be obligatory to try to keep them out until we can ensure that no undesirable and dangerous ones are slipping in along with the rest. It's awful for the inncent ones who will suffer due to this, but we are not obligated to harm ourselves for their benefit. Capisce?
As for the various comparisons to Jews fleeing the Nazis, you might say that this is only with the benefit of hindsight, but the facts show that there was and is no danger posed to America by Jews, whereas we can unfortunately not say the same about Muslims.....
Ooooohhh, you're sooooooooo close. See how bad it is to throw people out based on skin color? Now keep going with that line of reasoning......
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: David Smith on January 29, 2017, 08:58:35 PM
Actually I did not even mean that when I wrote it (although reading it now I can see why you might have thought so). My point simply was that when it comes to Muslim immigration there is an identifiable group of people who contain amongst them elements who pose a threat to us, and we are entitled to keep them out- entirely if necessary,  or at least until we can fashion a framework bye which we can eliminate the danger. I would not say that criteria applies absolutely to murders in Chicago, firstly there is no clearly identifiable group (and frankly despite what you thought I meant, I would not say African Americans are all part of the same group just because they share a skin color) that is overwhelmingly responsible, and even if there were being that they are citizens of this country, they are subject to the criminal justice system as opposed to simply just not letting them in. Whereas with Muslim immigrants, since as a group they clearly contain elements which are threatening, it would seem to in fact be obligatory to try to keep them out until we can ensure that no undesirable and dangerous ones are slipping in along with the rest. It's awful for the inncent ones who will suffer due to this, but we are not obligated to harm ourselves for their benefit. Capisce?
As for the various comparisons to Jews fleeing the Nazis, you might say that this is only with the benefit of hindsight, but the facts show that there was and is no danger posed to America by Jews, whereas we can unfortunately not say the same about Muslims.....
The distinction between group and group is ridiculous.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: iwlw2 on January 29, 2017, 09:14:19 PM
Ooooohhh, you're sooooooooo close. See how bad it is to throw people out based on skin color? Now keep going with that line of reasoning......
Ok Ill bite. (This goes as a reply for David Smith too.) It is simply an absolute fact to anyone paying attention the past 17 years or so, to whats gone on in Israel to Lower Manhattan to France to England etc. all throughout the world, that there are a great number of Muslims who believe that their religion requires them to kill and otherwise destroy other people, with Jews and Americans sharing space high up on that list. The estimates of how many Muslims are radicalized in this fashion vary greatly, but everyone agrees there is a not insignificant amount of them, to the point that anyone deciding about admitting a large group of them into their country would be criminally negligent not to take that into account. Either you're a whole lot more close-minded and racist than me to the point that you believe that a similar case can be made based on skin color, or so much more open-minded that all your brains fell out and you truly dont recognize the threat radical Islam poses to you and yours. In either case, I do not see there being any kind of comparison between tough immigration policies to weed out radical Islamists and racist policies, the former is simply common sense while the latter is obviously reprehensible.
This thread somtimes reminds me of what Queen Elizabeth is reputed to have said while opening an insane asylum, "Really you are the sane ones, but we are the majority." I honestly dont get why what Im saying is even at all controversial, and the snide attitude and comments you guys throw out there just reinforces the feeling of the mental disorder that is liberalism and its fierce contagion...... :-\ But I think Ive said enough so Ill leave it here guys, you can have at it  :-X
Title: Re: Re: Lyft
Post by: yuneeq on January 29, 2017, 10:24:04 PM
Not really. They have to satiate their employees, who many (maybe even most) of them are immigrants. They probably couldn't care less but don't want their employees to strike like the cabbies did in nyc.
Edit: I see that many people said this before me.

They didn't need to make a public statement about it, or take sides.
If they wanted to open their mouth they could say they feel for the refugees.
I deleted the Lyft app for the disrespectful political intolerance they have for their customers.

Make sure to mark as spam as well.
Title: Re: Re: Lyft
Post by: lechatchileh ariber on January 29, 2017, 10:41:39 PM
Shouldn't this thread be in otr?
Or is it exclusively for codes
Title: Re: Re: Lyft
Post by: TimT on January 29, 2017, 10:48:12 PM
Shouldn't this thread be in otr?
Or is it exclusively for codes
It could be anywhere but promo codes is a deal.
Title: Re: Re: Lyft
Post by: grodnoking on January 29, 2017, 10:59:57 PM
They didn't need to make a public statement about it, or take sides.
If they wanted to open their mouth they could say they feel for the refugees.
I deleted the Lyft app for the disrespectful political intolerance they have for their customers.

Make sure to mark as spam as well.
I'm sure they'd rather loose a few customers than loose half their drivers for awhile.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: aygart on January 29, 2017, 11:01:18 PM
http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-liberals-killed-the-freedom-of-movement-1485464612
Title: Re: Re: Lyft
Post by: TimT on January 29, 2017, 11:01:56 PM
I'm sure they'd rather loose a few customers than loose half their drivers for awhile.
And where would the drivers go ? Uber drivers are still going about their job.
Title: Re: Re: Lyft
Post by: grodnoking on January 29, 2017, 11:04:22 PM
And where would the drivers go ? Uber drivers are still going about their job.
It's a preemptive attempt to make sure they don't loose any of them.
Title: Re: Re: Lyft
Post by: TimT on January 29, 2017, 11:05:20 PM
It's a preemptive attempt to make sure they don't loose any of them.
So long as they get paid they're not going anywhere.
Title: Re: Re: Lyft
Post by: grodnoking on January 29, 2017, 11:06:45 PM
So long as they get paid they're not going anywhere.
Then why did the taxies in nyc go protesting?
Title: Re: Re: Lyft
Post by: yuneeq on January 29, 2017, 11:40:26 PM
I'm sure they'd rather loose a few customers than loose half their drivers for awhile.

When did I become a driver?
If they wanna email their drivers saying they have their backs it's fine with me.
Title: Re: Re: Lyft
Post by: grodnoking on January 29, 2017, 11:43:17 PM
When did I become a driver?
If they wanna email their drivers saying they have their backs it's fine with me.
They where just doing a better job in pretending they care. Or they possibly actually care, because they want future drivers, but not because they care about the actual people themselves. They took a calculated risk in doing what they did (and lost $1M - inflation) and you where just a number in their calculations in what they did.
And Uber did just the opposite, counting on you as a number for a profit.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: Emkay on January 30, 2017, 01:51:35 AM
Is this what make America great again looks like?
No. That's the labor pains while the liberals are trying to force an abortion.
We will get through this.
#MAGA
Title: Re: Re: Lyft
Post by: TAVI on January 30, 2017, 02:24:04 AM
totally an attempt to capitalize on the anti-trump sentiment, especially show themselves as in opposition to uber.
thinking of deleting them as well.
The day i need a taxi company to tell me what my moral compass should be...
Title: Re: Re: Lyft
Post by: David Smith on January 30, 2017, 02:29:41 AM
They didn't need to make a public statement about it, or take sides.
If they wanted to open their mouth they could say they feel for the refugees.
I deleted the Lyft app for the disrespectful political intolerance they have for their customers.

Make sure to mark as spam as well.
Your obsession for Trump is overtaking your rationality. If they were a solution for you before the, it would be irrational to let a political statement of yours interfere with making a decision that is entirely apolitical.
Title: Re: Re: Lyft
Post by: shulem92 on January 30, 2017, 02:32:55 AM
I was wondering why the lyft thread kept on getting bumped! Now I see. It turned in to a political discussion. #ClassicDDF
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 30, 2017, 06:21:45 AM
#MAGA
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/starbucks-ceo-schultz-plans-to-hire-10000-refugees-after-trump-ban/ar-AAmoa7m?li=BBnb7Kz
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: Emkay on January 30, 2017, 06:34:42 AM
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/starbucks-ceo-schultz-plans-to-hire-10000-refugees-after-trump-ban/ar-AAmoa7m?li=BBnb7Kz
MAGA means make AMERICA great again, not necessarily the people. You can take a horse to water, you cant make it drink.
Either way I am all for supporting those who truly support america.
Quote
The hiring efforts announced on Sunday would start in the United States by initially focusing on individuals who have served with U.S. troops as interpreters and support personnel in the various countries where the military has asked for such support, Schultz said.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 30, 2017, 06:50:39 AM
MAGA means make AMERICA great again, not necessarily the people. You can take a horse to water, you cant make it drink.
MAGA also insinuates that America is not a great country now. For me I it has always been a great and greatest counter to live in since I was born.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: Emkay on January 30, 2017, 06:53:54 AM
MAGA also insinuates that America is not a great country now. For me I it has always been a great and greatest counter to live in since I was born.
I agree with that. #MAG (make America greater)
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 30, 2017, 06:55:29 AM
#MAG (make America greater)
That I like!!!
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 30, 2017, 06:59:35 AM
For all those that say this is not directed at Muslims or there religion can you explain this to me? Why is there an exemption for minority religions? 
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 30, 2017, 07:36:16 AM
At least this ban will create more jobs.  ::)
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/aclu-raises-more-money-online-in-one-weekend-than-in-all-of-2016/ar-AAmnVxP?li=BBnb7Kz
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: Yehuda57 on January 30, 2017, 07:50:17 AM
For all those that say this is not directed at Muslims or there religion can you explain this to me? Why is there an exemption for minority religions?
The theory would be in countries where there is religious persecution, you give priority to minority religions so are getting persecuted. While in these 7 countries the majority is Muslim, in other countries Muslims who agree being persecuted would be the ones given exemption.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: grodnoking on January 30, 2017, 09:46:50 AM
For all those that say this is not directed at Muslims or there religion can you explain this to me? Why is there an exemption for minority religions?
So people being persecuted for their religion can come to America to escape.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: grodnoking on January 30, 2017, 09:48:56 AM
MAGA means make AMERICA great again, not necessarily the people. You can take a horse to water, you cant make it drink.
Either way I am all for supporting those who truly support america.
Now Shultz is smart, making it sound like he's helping immigrants, and in reality he's helping those who helped America.
Title: Re: Re: Lyft
Post by: yuneeq on January 30, 2017, 10:00:03 AM
They where just doing a better job in pretending they care. Or they possibly actually care, because they want future drivers, but not because they care about the actual people themselves. They took a calculated risk in doing what they did (and lost $1M - inflation) and you where just a number in their calculations in what they did.
And Uber did just the opposite, counting on you as a number for a profit.

I have no clue what Uber did or did not do, and I really don't care. I don't care if every company in the US is run by liberals.
What I do know is that Uber didn't shove their political agenda in my face.

(Unrelated- Lyft will write the $1m as a charitable donation, they didn't waste that money)
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 30, 2017, 10:06:36 AM
So people being persecuted for their religion can come to America to escape.
If you believe that is why the exemption is in there for Christians I have a bridge to sell you.
Title: Re: Re: Lyft
Post by: yuneeq on January 30, 2017, 10:09:33 AM
Your obsession for Trump is overtaking your rationality. If they were a solution for you before the, it would be irrational to let a political statement of yours interfere with making a decision that is entirely apolitical.

This has nothing to do with Trump, this has to do with Lyft and me.
I don't want uber to say "all liberals are inhumane" just like I don't want Lyft to take a stance and insult my political views, which in the case of immigration, happen to mostly aligns with Trumps. Companies should stay out of politics, but it's worse when they repeat baseless rhetoric like "against our nation's values" - show me in the constitution where it says that we need to indefinitely accept every immigrant no matter how dangerous they might be? Would lyft gave $1m to the ACLU if they were around in 2011 when Obama did the same thing?
Title: Re: Re: Lyft
Post by: JTZ on January 30, 2017, 10:13:27 AM
This has nothing to do with Trump, this has to do with Lyft and me.
I don't want uber to say "all liberals are inhumane" just like I don't want Lyft to take a stance and insult my political views, which in the case of immigration, happen to mostly aligns with Trumps. Companies should stay out of politics, but it's worse when they repeat baseless rhetoric like "against our nation's values" - show me in the constitution where it says that we need to indefinitely accept every immigrant no matter how dangerous they might be? Would lyft gave $1m to the ACLU if they were around in 2011 when Obama did the same thing?
If you are not going to do business with companies that stick their nose in politics you will be relegated back to the stone age.
Title: Re: Re: Lyft
Post by: yuneeq on January 30, 2017, 10:22:16 AM
If you are not going to do business with companies that stick their nose in politics you will be relegated back to the stone age.

I didn't say they can't stick their nose in politics.
But I think it would be better if they didn't at all.

It's a real issue when they take partisan political stances, which is not usually the case for 99% of companies.
Title: Re: Re: Lyft
Post by: JTZ on January 30, 2017, 10:26:33 AM
It's a real issue when they take partisan political stances, which is not usually the case for 99% of companies.
What is a partisan stance? Is saying the wall or this latest EO is wrong a partisan stance?
Title: Re: Re: Lyft
Post by: yuneeq on January 30, 2017, 10:44:54 AM
What is a partisan stance? Is saying the wall or this latest EO is wrong a partisan stance?

Wall- yes, partisan. Tell me one reason why a US company should say a wall is right or wrong.
EO- Saying you care for refugees is okay. Saying that the EO is "wrong" needs basis for that statement that isn't tied to emotions. It is neither unconstitutional nor unprecedented, so don't go ahead and criticize your customers and say that we believe in something that is "antithetical to our nations core values". On a side note, it is interesting how liberals don't realize how hypocritical they have become- example: Lyft- "We stand together...we want our world to be diverse" while attacking customers who don't agree with their narrow opinions. Same for the "he will not divide us" loonies who think that repeating that mantra all day in front of a camera will bring the nation together. They will never say something like "we will stay together" because that would actually be a positive attempt to get people together.
Title: Re: Re: Lyft
Post by: iwlw2 on January 30, 2017, 10:52:45 AM
Wall- yes, partisan. Tell me one reason why a US company should say a wall is right or wrong.
EO- Saying you care for refugees is okay. Saying that the EO is "wrong" needs basis for that statement that isn't tied to emotions. It is neither unconstitutional nor unprecedented, so don't go ahead and criticize your customers and say that we believe in something that is "antithetical to our nations core values". On a side note, it is interesting how liberals don't realize how hypocritical they have become- example: Lyft- "We stand together...we want our world to be diverse" while attacking customers who don't agree with their narrow opinions. Same for the "he will not divide us" loonies who think that repeating that mantra all day in front of a camera will bring the nation together. They will never say something like "we will stay together" because that would actually be a positive attempt to get people together.
+1
Title: Re: Re: Lyft
Post by: JTZ on January 30, 2017, 10:53:13 AM
Wall- yes, partisan. Tell me one reason why a US company should say a wall is right or wrong.
Because they have a right to. Taking a stance on something does not mean it is political or partisan.
Title: Re: Re: Lyft
Post by: yuneeq on January 30, 2017, 11:00:51 AM
Because they have a right to. Taking a stance on something does not mean it is political or partisan.

The CEO also has the right to walk around with his pants off (well maybe not, let's say he has the right to walk around with a wig and his face painted like a tiger).
What's your point?

Now answer my original question- What stance can a company take against the wall that isn't partisan politics?
Title: Re: Re: Lyft
Post by: JTZ on January 30, 2017, 11:04:34 AM
Now answer my original question- What stance can a company take against the wall that isn't partisan politics?
Maybe he believes as I do it is a waste of money and will never work. Is that a political or partisan issue?
Title: Re: Re: Lyft
Post by: TimT on January 30, 2017, 11:16:27 AM
Maybe he believes as I do it is a waste of money and will never work. Is that a political or partisan issue?
Then he should email his friends, not paying customers.
Title: Re: Re: Lyft
Post by: yuneeq on January 30, 2017, 11:20:17 AM
Maybe he believes as I do it is a waste of money and will never work. Is that a political or partisan issue?

"We believe that the wall is a waste of Mexico's money because the wall will not work to stop illegal immigration. We hope the President gives us a chance to propose better solutions." That's about the only thing they can say that's not partisan, but ain't nobody ever saying that, nor would I advise them to.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 30, 2017, 12:45:02 PM
So this fiasco was caused by everyone except Trump. I guess it had nothing to do with an EO that his own people didn't understand.

"Big problems at airports were caused by Delta computer outage,.....protesters and the tears of Senator Schumer."
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 30, 2017, 12:54:21 PM
The America/American we can all be proud of!!!
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/when-muslims-got-blocked-at-american-airports-us-veterans-rushed-to-help/ar-AAmoLmp?li=BBnb7Kz
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: syp5 on January 30, 2017, 05:38:02 PM
http://www.dailywire.com/news/1217/no-muslim-refugees-are-not-jewish-wwii-refugees-michael-qazvini
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: iwlw2 on January 30, 2017, 06:09:59 PM
http://www.dailywire.com/news/1217/no-muslim-refugees-are-not-jewish-wwii-refugees-michael-qazvini
+1000
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: aygart on January 30, 2017, 06:50:26 PM
http://www.dailywire.com/news/1217/no-muslim-refugees-are-not-jewish-wwii-refugees-michael-qazvini
I can't say I like the 4th reason
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: elit on January 30, 2017, 07:33:21 PM
https://subjectpolitics.com/cnn-tries-get-refugee-say-hates-trump-immediately-regrets-viral-video/
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: good sam on January 31, 2017, 12:02:29 AM
Should have posted here.

Sally Yates is out, Dana Boente is in.

https://m.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/posts/10158573747555725

Curious, anyone know why he couldn't or wouldn't appoint Sessions as acting AG?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: good sam on January 31, 2017, 12:48:37 AM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monday_Night_Massacre
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 31, 2017, 12:50:13 AM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monday_Night_Massacre
I was going to say they got the day wrong.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: Boruch999 on January 31, 2017, 05:44:22 AM
Stupid, unjust, unfair, draconian, evil, cruel, I can hear how someone can feel that though I disagree for the most part. But unconstitutional? Sentors and the like are throwing that around right and left.  Can someone enlighten me how this can be construed as unconstitutional?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 31, 2017, 06:26:35 AM
Can someone enlighten me how this can be construed as unconstitutional?
Unless we have a constitutional lawyer here that isn't going to happen. Going to have to wait and let the courts decide.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: zh cohen on January 31, 2017, 07:26:35 AM
Should have posted here.

From what I understand, it has to be someone from within the Justice department. Also, because Dana Boente was confirmed by the Senate (when being appointed as US attorney) he can sign FISA warrants.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: good sam on January 31, 2017, 07:54:04 AM
From what I understand, it has to be someone from within the Justice department. Also, because Dana Boente was confirmed by the Senate (when being appointed as US attorney) he can sign FISA warrants.
Interesting.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: aradisc on January 31, 2017, 08:05:47 AM
The irony is incredible. Here's Senator Sessions questioning Sally Yates during her confirmation hearing. He asks her if she's willing to do the exact thing she did yesterday:
&t=0m34s
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: syp5 on January 31, 2017, 08:14:21 AM
actually not quite, She didn't oppose the person that appointed her - Obama, she went against Trump when she knows she'll be paraded around by the media as a hero for opposing.. 
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: Boruch999 on January 31, 2017, 08:14:57 AM
The irony is incredible. Here's Senator Sessions questioning Sally Yates during her confirmation hearing. He asks her if she's willing to do the exact thing she did yesterday:
&t=0m34s
Not the exact same thing she did yesterday.  What they are discussing is the duty of the AG to advise POTUS that something he would like to do is unlawful.  What she did was advise all her subordinates that she was unconvinced that the EO was lawful and order them to insubordinate. 
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: Boruch999 on January 31, 2017, 08:21:56 AM
Unless we have a constitutional lawyer here that isn't going to happen. Going to have to wait and let the courts decide.

It should be pretty unambiguious.  Does the Constitution address the rights of foreign nationals to enter the USA?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 31, 2017, 09:24:36 AM
It should be pretty unambiguious.  Does the Constitution address the rights of foreign nationals to enter the USA?
It is not that easy. It is the immigration law I believe they are talking about. One part says you can't discriminate based on nation of origin or where they were born. Another part says the president has the power to ban if it is in the best interest of the US.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: zh cohen on January 31, 2017, 12:07:37 PM
The irony is incredible. Here's Senator Sessions questioning Sally Yates during her confirmation hearing. He asks her if she's willing to do the exact thing she did yesterday:
&t=0m34s

Except that she admitted that the OLC found it lawful, and her main justification for not defending it was that it is not "just".

Her job is to defend any law that can be reasonably defended. Her statment only said "I am not convinced it is lawful".

If she was not comfortable doing her job, she should have quit.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: yuneeq on January 31, 2017, 12:19:20 PM
Except that she admitted that the OLC found it lawful, and her main justification for not defending it was that it is not "just".

Her job is to defend any law that can be reasonably defended. Her statment only said "I am not convinced it is lawful".

If she was not comfortable doing her job, she should have quit.

She has a right to do the job as she sees fit and she was willing to face the consequences.
She knew she was being replaced shortly so she had nothing to worry about.

I don't know what's so controversial from either POV.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: good sam on January 31, 2017, 12:23:41 PM
She has a right to do the job as she sees fit and she was willing to face the consequences.
She knew she was being replaced shortly so she had nothing to worry about.

I don't know what's so controversial from either POV.
Agree with this completely. Both she and Trump did what they had to.

Those saying Trump is a dictator are watching a different movie.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: zh cohen on January 31, 2017, 12:30:32 PM
She has a right to do the job as she sees fit and she was willing to face the consequences.

She actually has to do the job the way her boss (Trump) tells her to. And she certainly can't decide to not do her job.

I don't know what's so controversial from either POV.

Not controversial, but stupid. I think we can all agree that the reason she did what she did was to make noise and get attention for her cause.

Any bets for how long it will take before she runs for office?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: yuneeq on January 31, 2017, 12:33:55 PM
She actually has to do the job the way her boss (Trump) tells her to. And she certainly can't decide to not do her job.

Not controversial, but stupid. I think we can all agree that the reason she did what she did was to make noise and get attention for her cause.

Any bets for how long it will take before she runs for office?

If she thinks its immoral even if its constitutional I don't mind if she defies orders and faces the consequences.
Maybe she's an attention seeker but who cares.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: Yehuda57 on January 31, 2017, 12:37:38 PM
She has a right to do the job as she sees fit and she was willing to face the consequences.
She knew she was being replaced shortly so she had nothing to worry about.

I don't know what's so controversial from either POV.

There is a difference between resigning in protest and refusing to do your job.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: gozalim on January 31, 2017, 02:43:19 PM
There is a difference between resigning in protest and refusing to do your job.
boohoo!
so she technically was wrong for defying, thereby justifying her firing.
she played him, made him fire her instead of quitting. too bad.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: syp5 on January 31, 2017, 02:52:02 PM
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/01/obama-refused-91-refugees-sent-back-castros-hell-hole-2-days-inauguration-liberal-media-silent/

double standard is glaring
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 31, 2017, 02:55:23 PM
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/01/obama-refused-91-refugees-sent-back-castros-hell-hole-2-days-inauguration-liberal-media-silent/

double standard is glaring
What am I missing? Mexico did this, no?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: syp5 on January 31, 2017, 02:58:59 PM
"The Mexican government had been granting Cubans 20-day transit visas to make it to the U.S. border."

I believe this is the point... previously they would have been allowed in to the USA....
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 31, 2017, 03:04:58 PM
"The Mexican government had been granting Cubans 20-day transit visas to make it to the U.S. border."

I believe this is the point... previously they would have been allowed in to the USA....
This was Mexico's decision to deport them. What does this have to do with the US?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: syp5 on January 31, 2017, 03:07:15 PM
"The Mexican government had been granting Cubans 20-day transit visas to make it to the U.S. border.

All 20 Cuban women and 71 men had arrived at Mexico's southern border seeking such transit documents.

But Mexico will apparently no longer automatically issue them, now the policy has changed."

Mexico won't issue the transit docs due to the change in US policy...

Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 31, 2017, 03:09:03 PM
"The Mexican government had been granting Cubans 20-day transit visas to make it to the U.S. border.

All 20 Cuban women and 71 men had arrived at Mexico's southern border seeking such transit documents.

But Mexico will apparently no longer automatically issue them, now the policy has changed."
So Mexico changed there policy. Again what does that have to do with the US?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: elit on January 31, 2017, 03:35:04 PM
Here's is a post in the EO from Prof. Robert George leading conservative academic
Quote
Everybody!

Please read this analysis by Angela Wu Howard of the Trump executive order. Please read every word. It is long, but worth your time and effort.

Angela is a leading international human rights lawyer and activist with whom I have worked at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. I admire her and hold her in the highest esteem. I myself have been planning to write an analysis of the EO, but Angela has saved me the trouble. There is nothing in what she says that I can improve on. I am extremely grateful for her work, and if you take the time to read her analysis you will be grateful too.

There is an enormous amount of confusion about the EO. President Trump bears a lot of responsibility for the confusion and his critics bear some of it. In my opinion, the EO was not necessary and therefore should not have been issued. Angela explains why. A significant part of the reason is that we already have "extreme vetting" of refugees. In this important respect, we are quite unlike many European nations. Of course, most Americans don't know this. I myself only learned it as a result of extensive briefing when I was chairing the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. There is a lot of stuff in our government that is "broken" but our refugee vetting system is not. We needn't, and therefore shouldn't, shut out refugees who are fleeing terrorism in places like Syria and Iraq, even temporarily. Because it wasn't necessary to do it, it was, in my opinion, necessary not to do it.

When I was chairing USCIRF, I called for an increase in the refugee quota. I continue to favor that. Many of my conservative friends don't like it, but I believe that justice as well as compassion requires it. The U.S. is not without responsibility for creating the refugee crisis (or the conditions for it)--though we can debate just which presidents and others bear just what portion of that responsibility. I also favor maintaining the stringency of the vetting system, even if that means we do not reach the quota. That's because I do believe that national security is preeminently important. The other thing I advocated and continue to advocate is prioritization of refugee acceptance based on vulnerability to the worst forms of abuse: murder, rape, torture, enslavement. This is NOT because I want to bias the system in favor of Christians, as some of my more ridiculous critics on the Left have claimed. It is because decency requires it. Yes, Christians will benefit, but so will Yazidis, Shabak, Turkmen, minority Muslims, and even majority Muslims who are targeted by terrorists (such as ISIS) for helping U.S. forces or opposing terrorist entities. Thaese are the people targeted by the evildoers for the worst forms of abuse.

OK.  Here's Angela. (Judy Romea, Lila Rose, Emma Faith)

MY SUMMARY OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER ON TERRORISM, IMMIGRATION, AND REFUGEES.

Monday morning I listened to a Senator from Virginia on NPR saying a bunch of things about the Executive Order that are completely untrue. Aside from being one of our elected legislators, the Senator is also an attorney and there's just no excuse for the misinformation -- it confuses people, confuses the debate, and deprives a legitimate opposition of credibility. There is a lot to criticise about the order and I will discuss some of those things, but it is completely unhelpful for people to be spreading falsehoods. So I'm going to post some thoughts here that address the most common confusions that I have heard over the last few days.
If you're desperate to litmus test my politics on this, it was said best by jurist, philosopher, and conservative Catholic intellectual Prof. Robby George at Princeton: "The way to fight terrorists is not by closing our doors---or hearts---to their victims." But that doesn't actually tell you what I would think of the EO itself.

Here's what I'm going to cover:

1. Basic facts of the EO (I've had a lot of people write me saying, can you please tell me what it actually says, because the media is confusing me; there are other people who have done good summaries, but I'll add mine because it responds to questions that I've gotten directly).

2. Drafting problems: overbreadth, lack of legal and agency consultation, lack of administrative clarity.

3. Is it a Muslim ban?

4. Why isn't Saudi Arabia on the List of Countries if the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia?

5. Did Trump just exempt Muslim majority countries with which he has business ties?

6. Prioritizing religious minorities: Is it justified? Does the EO have an exception only for Christians?

Rules of Engagement:

1) PLEASE DO NOT COMMENT ON THIS POST WITHOUT READING THE ENTIRE POST. Except: If you only care about one of the points go ahead and skip reading the rest and feel free to comment or question that one point that you read.

2) I will be happy to respond to further questions or requests for clarifications, good-will misreadings or oversights, and actual arguments against any point that I make -- go ahead and flat out disagree with my reading, or even tell me that a particular argument makes you feel angry and why.

3) I will not respond to people who raise questions, especially in accusatory form, that have already been addressed.

4) I will delete any ad hominem attacks (attacks on the person instead of the argument, whether directed at me or another commenter), assumptions about whom I voted for (it is amazing to me how many people do that, and usually inaccurately), or uncivil language. I lament as many do the limitations of social media for civil discourse, but I've also seen it done very well and bring people who usually would not cross paths together, so I know it's possible. Let's do that here.

5) I do not know all the answers and although I have litigated immigration, asylum, and refugee cases in the past, this is not primarily what I do, and I have limited time that I have to prioritize. If I don't know the answer I will freely tell you that.

6) Lastly, you may share or copy and paste any of this without asking or even attributing to me on fb ("my friend Angela" or "someone I know" is fine). If you want to use any of it in interviews or other more public fora, do ask.

1. BASIC FACTS:

I suggest that you to read the actual text of the EO for yourself. It's not that long. You can find the text here: https://nytimes.com/…/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.…. But here is what the Executive Order does, in summary:

VETTING PROCEDURES OVERHAUL

a) Orders a fairly comprehensive review of all our immigration and refugee vetting processes; directs agencies to develop "uniform screening" standards across agencies; orders reports back from State, Homeland Security, National Intelligence, etc. every 30 days.

BARS TO VISAS BASED ON SEVEN COUNTRIES OF ORIGIN

b) "uspend(s) entry" into the US for 90 days of all persons from seven Muslim majority countries named by the Obama administration as harboring terrorists (this is the provision people are calling a "Muslim ban"); allows the Secretaries of State and a Homeland Security jointly to make exceptions on a case-by-case basis; orders a review of whether any other countries should be added to or removed from Obama's list.

REFUGEES

c) Suspends refugee processing (for nationals from any country, not just seven) for 120 days; orders that during those 120 days, the refugee vetting process be reexamined; once new procedures are in place, refugee applicants "already in process" may be admitted if the new requirements are satisfied (it seems even within the 120 days).

d) After the 120 day refugee program suspension is over, prioritizes ("to the extent permitted by law") refugee claims based on religious persecution by applicants who are religious minorities in the countries from which they apply. The order does not name any particular religious demographic.

e) Bars refugees from Syria indefinitely (so most likely beyond the 120 days).

f) Secretaries of State and Homeland Security can make exceptions to any refugee bar in the EO on a case-by-case basis, particularly when needed to "conform...to a preexisting international agreement" or "when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship".

OTHER INTERESTING PROVISIONS THAT MOSTLY PEOPLE AREN'T TALKING ABOUT

g) Orders Homeland Security to see whether state and local jurisdictions "may have greater involvement" in placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions.

h) Expedites completion of a biometric entry-exit tracking system.

i) Suspends the Visa Waiver Interview Program, which allowed visitors from certain countries without an interview -- there doesn't seem to be an end date to this suspension. Orders compliance with an in-person interview process already required by a section of the INA. Expands the Consular Fellows Program, so that there will be more consular fellows on the ground "to ensure that non-immigrant visa-interview wait times are not unduly affected".

k) Orders information regarding terrorism related offenses committed by foreign nations in the US be released to the public every six months.

l) Says nothing is to be interpreted to impair or affect authority granted by law to existing agencies. "This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law". That's self-constraining, basically to say this is only enforceable only insofar as it's legal. Obviously what that means is playing out in court right now.

m) This is contained in Section 1 explaining the Purpose of the act, that the US "should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including 'honor' killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation." You might think this is pretty hypocritical if you think that our current government is misogynist, bigoted, abusive, or homophobic, but I found it really interesting that there was this essentially gratuitous language expressing the kinds of people the EO envisions coming to America (basically not those things).

2. DRAFTING PROBLEMS: overbreadth, lack of agency consultation, lack of administrative clarity.

When I read the EO in the first 12 hours, I wasn't sure how much criticism it deserved at this level, because the language of the EO does not itself tell us what enforcement would look like. It is important for any order that makes policy changes to have gone through lots of vetting and agency consultation, and for there to be clear procedures for enforcement that can be communicated to every agency affected, and all the way down to the guy sitting in a booth at JFK border control. But it is now obvious that this just wasn't executed well. And keeping in mind the kind of bureaucracy that already encumbers our immigration, refugee, and asylum systems, there isn't a lot of hope that the most humane interpretations will be taken of the language contained. In the middle of the night after the EO was signed, I heard from a colleague that he had a Coptic Christian Egyptian being held up at Dulles. (His case has since been resolved.) The language of the EO didn't cover him -- Egypt isn't on the EO's list -- but it was obvious that the guy at the airport wasn't sure of it. Most likely, he'd just read that there was a new "Muslim ban" (more on the problems with that term below) and that was enough to cause confusion at the border. That means there's at the very least an enforcement failure. Before anything went into effect, everyone whose job it is to carry out orders should clearly have understood what those orders are and how to execute them clearly. It's also not the first time that an immigration rule change caused confusion -- see a personal example in
point 4 below.

A couple of days later, we have tech companies that have had to put off flying their foreign employees to offices in America; military personnel who have criticized the EO because it has shut out, say, Iraqi pilots who were supposed to train in Arizona; and of course, the refugees in transit who have already lived through unimaginable horrors just to survive and then been through the toughest vetting process in the world but whose futures are suddenly and once again, uncertain. Possibly the administration thought through all these scenarios, but it was obvious that they were improvising when they said in answer to questions coming from the field that green card holders (who are not mentioned in the EO) may not enter and then in fewer than 24 hours reversed course (they may). The administration just didn't think through the implications and address them effectively. Regardless of whether this is simple incompetence or actual ill-will, it's evidence of a leadership failure for which the human fallout is really big.

Refugees are the most highly vetted people in transit in the world already. It's a lot easier for a terrorist to come into our borders using a tourist or student or even worker visa. The EO covers reexamination of all of them, but I am confused as to why the suspension for refugees is 30 days longer than the seven country visa suspension. I also really don't know what we are going to accomplish by reexamining refugee vetting. When I say I don't know, I actually don't know. Maybe there is in fact some failure in current procedures that can and should be addressed. Section 4 on establishing Uniform Screening, for example, suggests that we don't have uniform screening yet across all the different agencies.

Specifically, Section 4 directs the various agencies to implement a "uniform screening standard and procedure, such as in-person interviews; a database of identity documents proffered by applicants, etc." Then it gives the agencies 60 days to submit the first report on progress toward this end. That sounds like a good idea. Did we need a temporary freeze while this review and revision happens, particularly in consideration of the effect on refugees that everyone is justly concerned with? Well, number of terror attacks perpetrated by refugees: zero. Also, of 750,000 refugees the US has accepted since 9/11 apparently 12 have been arrested for suspected terrorist activity -- is it "only" 12 and therefore worth the cost considering our humanitarian obligations or 12 too many? That's a different discussion, but the fact remains that the refugee vetting process is incredibly stringent already. (Regarding risk assessment and making law: you have a greater risk of dying from falling out of your bed than dying from a terror attack. But these kinds of statistics don't always matter to people. Most people think it's less horrifying to die from falling out of your bed than from a terror attack. It's not just a numbers game. But I digress.)

3. IS IT A MUSLIM BAN?

The words "Muslim" or even "Islam" do not appear anywhere in the EO text. But there is damning evidence of discriminatory intent that must colour our reading of the text. For example, Rudy Giuliani publicly stating that Trump told Giuliani that he wanted a "Muslim ban" and asked how to do it legally. (See http://thehill.com/.../316726-giuliani-trump-asked-me-how...) Assuming Giuliani is telling the truth, the best reading of this is that "Muslim ban" was Trump's lazy shorthand for referring to terrorist threats originating from the Muslim majority world. The worst reading is, well, he wants a Muslim ban and cover to do it.

I don't particularly like parroting the term "Muslim ban", for four reasons. First, it further instills fear among Muslims and other minorities. It has broken my heart how the rhetoric of the last two years has made my friends in minority and immigrant communities feel scared and confused. Second, it further emboldens the teeny minority of white nationalists who think they have a right to harass people in the streets or whatever it is that they are doing that is sickening -- "Muslim ban" is not even close to a complete description of what this order does, but it probably makes them feel really good that it does. And it allows Trump to pander to that part of his base. Third, it's kind of a lazy way to talk about the EO. In an era of increasing polarization such that most people don't rub shoulders with anyone who disagrees with them, lazy is particularly dangerous. This all dovetails with my pleas (into the wind) during the election -- can we please stop parroting and spreading the sensationalist soundbites and focus on serious people, candidates, issues? Fourth, it reinforces the narrative among our enemies abroad that America hates Muslims -- and that's a terrorist recruiting tool.

On the other hand, saying "Muslim ban" is accurate -- they were Trump's own words. If I were litigating a case against the EO, I would quote the heck out of it to demonstrate discriminatory intent.

4. WHY ISN'T SAUDI ARABIA ON THE LIST OF COUNTRIES? 9/11 TERRORISTS CAME FROM SAUDI ARABIA?

For this question, the best person to answer would be President Obama. The order seeks "Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern" referred to in an long-standing section of the INA (Immigration and Nationality Act), 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12). In short, that section names seven countries the Obama administration considered at heightened likelihood of harboring terrorists and imposes more stringent US entry requirements on people who had traveled through those countries.

Saudi Arabia was not on this list. Should it have been? Maybe? But it wasn't, and that was an Obama decision. The EO does direct agencies to make recommendations for whom else belongs on the list. So they're revisiting it, but I imagine that for show, Trump wanted to act really quickly, and just deferred to the previous administration's own determinations for the moment.

There is a cruel irony to naming these seven mostly war-torn countries -- it may be that, like Obama, Trump thinks it makes sense that people from those countries deserve heightened scrutiny, but that's also where you'd expect refugees need to escape from the most. So a blanket ban, even a temporary one, seems particularly harsh.

The best (and more thorough) explanation of this that I have come across is and article by Seth Frantzman, a journalist who has been covering war and refugee stories for the last several years and is very sympathetic to the refugee plight, "Obama's Administration Made the Muslim Ban Possible and the Media Won't Tell You": https://sethfrantzman.com/…/obamas-administration-made-the…/ Go read it! Keep reading because this next point is important:

A friend of a friend does point this out: "The Obama administration based their analysis on probabilities that suspected Al-Queda or ISIL extremists would travel BETWEEN one or more of these nations before entering the country. While the 2015 Visa Waiver Program may have been news to Jerusalem-based Seth Frantzman, it was widely panned by right-wing groups as ineffective and discriminatory against Iranians, who at the time were in an intelligence and public relations battle with the U.S." He quotes this 2015 piece: http://thehill.com/…/263661-visa-waiver-program-improvement….

The Obama policy changes are most likely the reason why not that long ago, Pete got held up at Dulles for several hours coming in with a passport stamp from one of these seven countries. They wouldn't tell him why they had him sitting without his cellphone or permission to contact anyone, in a little room by himself, for hours, and let me tell you, he was really mad about it. Looking back I realize that the timing coheres with Obama's expansion of the list. This is speculation, but most likely, border control was trying to figure out what the new rules meant, how stringently they were supposed to grill Pete.

Now, he was just held for a few hours. He wasn't fleeing persecution. He hadn't been through hell as a refugee for several years already only to have a last hurdle at US border control thrown up because of an unexpected change in rules while he was in transit. He's a white man (although he looked pretty dark and scruffy after his weeks-long travels through the Middle East), an American-born citizen, and his wife happens to be a lawyer who has litigated immigration, asylum, and refugee cases. I noticed he was late, and I would have gone into panic mode and done something about it if he'd been any later getting home than he was and I couldn't reach him. My point here is that with all that privilege, he still got swept up in the system. Just imagine a less clear change in immigration policy, not speaking the language, having none of the resources that Pete had. God help the many people who have to deal with this every day and have no hope of a safe, permanent home. But it happens, and it doesn't just happen under our current president. All the more reason why such care should be taken with the enforcement of new directives like this (see Point 2).

5. I have heard people say that THE ONLY MUSLIM-MAJORITY COUNTRIES THAT THE EO DOES NOT NAME ARE COUNTRIES WHERE TRUMP DOES BUSINESS. Short answer: it's very unlikely for anyone from America to do major business in the seven countries listed by the Obama-era state department as being "Countries of Particular Concern" for harboring terrorists. It's not surprising that Trump only does business in Muslim majority countries that are not on the list, are relatively stable, and have functioning governments and judicial systems (like Indonesia, Malaysia, or even Azerbaijan). It's why people like Brian Grim and his http://religiousfreedomandbusiness.org make the argument that an independent judiciary is good for business and looking at human rights is a good litmus test -- if courts adjudicate human rights claims fairly, then foreign investors can probably count on them to adjudicate a potential contract dispute fairly. Most countries in turmoil don't satisfy any of these criteria. The Trump Organization presents a lot of conflict of interest and ethical challenges that are concerning and worth discussing and taking seriously, but this has nothing to do with the EO. Is Trump probably glad that the countries that he has hotels in weren't on the list? Sure. But that's not the same thing as intentionally leaving them off just to protect his businesses. Stop conflating the issues.

6. PRIORITIZING RELIGIOUS MINORITIES. The EO directs agencies, once the ban has been lifted, to prioritize the applications of refugees who are religious minorities in the countries they are feeling from. It does not single out Christians for admission, so if you see a headline saying it does, it's just not true. Religious minorities covered by the EO include Yazidis, who have arguably been the most heavily pursued and persecuted by ISIS, and, say, Rohingya Muslims in countries like Buddhist-majority Burma, which has been severely persecuting the minority Muslims within their borders, and whom the US and the rest of the world has largely ignored. The provision would indeed also include Christians from Muslim-majority countries, who have been disproportionately affected and disproportionately shut out of the US -- Christians comprised 10% of the Syrian population but have composed less than 1% of the Syrian refugees the US has admitted. So this provision is a reversal of the underrepresentation these minorities received under Obama's refugee admittance policies -- and that's a good thing.

Putting aside this practical underrepresentation, here is why as a matter of principle it should be considered just to prioritize religiously persecuted refugees over other war refugees. There's no question that war refugees are suffering greatly, driven from their homes, under constant danger as a result of the war around them. They deserve compassion, protection, shelter. The difference between the two is that religiously persecuted refugees are in the current war(s) being specifically sought out and targeted, hunted, if you will, by ISIS and, in places like Nigeria, by Boko Haram, etc. So there is an objective urgency to their cases, that, as bad as other war refugees have it, does surpass other cases. There also may be the case that some war refugees are being targeted and pursued independent of religious identity (perhaps because of known active resistance to the prevailing regime, etc. -- this is the case, for example, for Iraqi Muslims who have aided the American war effort as pilots or translators). It would be fairly well accepted in the refugee law world that that fact makes their cases for resettlement stronger as well.

7. Notwithstanding the rules of engagement, you don't have to read this point to comment because it's not really about the EO. It's something that I have been thinking throughout the election cycle and the tumultuous first days of this new administration: for better or worse in the long run, Trump is a huge wake-up call. In a culture of "Sex and the City", of the mainstreaming of pornography and the objectification of women, of reality TV, crassness is the king we deserve. In a culture of death, of drone strikes (more during Obama's administration than W's!), of the death penalty, of increasing gun violence, of 90% of potential Downs Syndrome babies aborted, a king who uses life-sapping incendiary language, and disparages the disabled, is the king we deserve. In a time of ad hominem vitriol -- we are so eager to call other people "baby killers" or people who just "don't want to allow women control over their bodies" or who are "pro-birth" and don't give a damn about women and children after birth, instead of read each other's motivations in the best light and then make actual arguments about the merits of a policy -- a king who prefers to live in an echo chamber, and exercises a lazy intellect, would be the king we deserve.

All of the things I'm talking about have been going on for a really long time. We kept consuming ("but this show is so entertaining!") and making excuses ("those people are obviously inhumane and it's fine for me to call them names"). It didn't start in 2016. Even putting culture aside -- up on point #4 I explained that the "Muslim ban" has existed in one form or another for a long time. But we didn't feel the need to do anything about it because our country is so polarized, it only pays to criticize the opposition instead of look in the mirror. What's happening now is a long time coming. We should all have been mad earlier, and maybe, at our own people first. But it's not too late, and I disparage the argument that just because you didn't protest before, or you were wrong about one thing, you have no right to speak up now, or you must be wrong about everything. So go ahead, pay attention, and protest. Just be accurate about what you're protesting.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: gozalim on January 31, 2017, 04:02:51 PM
Here's is a post in the EO from Prof. Robert George leading conservative academic
TL,DR
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: elit on January 31, 2017, 04:17:02 PM
TL,DR
Great and u could be like the rest of this dumbed down society we live in and just form your opions based on flashy sound bites
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: yuneeq on January 31, 2017, 05:10:55 PM
Great and u could be like the rest of this dumbed down society we live in and just form your opions based on flashy sound bites

There is unlimited amounts of information that we can read but not unlimited time. A TLDR helps people decide if they'd like to read further.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: elit on January 31, 2017, 05:19:07 PM
There is unlimited amounts of information that we can read but not unlimited time. A TLDR helps people decide if they'd like to read further.
I thought that stands for too long didn't read am i wrong?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 31, 2017, 05:23:21 PM
I thought that stands for too long didn't read am i wrong?
Literally translates to: That was too long to read.
Really translates to: I'm too lazy to read the entirety of what you said, but I still want to say something.
 :)
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: TimT on January 31, 2017, 05:29:11 PM
In short, this Prof. would like to hold the record for longest post on DDF. That's my understanding :)
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: good sam on January 31, 2017, 05:35:19 PM
In short, this Prof. would like to hold the record for longest post on DDF. That's my understanding :)
Not even close
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: TimT on January 31, 2017, 05:37:18 PM
Not even close
He'll try again, no doubt
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: yuneeq on January 31, 2017, 05:56:58 PM
I thought that stands for too long didn't read am i wrong?

That's what it literally stands for but many times it's used by the OP to summarize a post.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on January 31, 2017, 06:39:02 PM
They are getting hammered on this. Trump and press secretary called it a ban now they say it isn't a ban. Talk about a three ring circus. This is sad.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: Sport on January 31, 2017, 06:49:13 PM
Great analysis, I recommend taking the 10 minute to read it. Her last point is on the money.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: chff on February 01, 2017, 09:17:22 PM
Remember him?



There is another one on LBC Show, but can't upload it
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: good sam on February 03, 2017, 09:10:33 AM
Bowling Green Massacre is trending, and it's hilarious.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: yuneeq on February 09, 2017, 03:32:32 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-syrias-assad-tells-yahoo-news-some-refugees-are-definitely-terrorists-182401926.html
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: aradisc on February 09, 2017, 08:41:00 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-syrias-assad-tells-yahoo-news-some-refugees-are-definitely-terrorists-182401926.html

Assad says everyone he's fighting in the Syrian Civil War are terrorists. He's a brutal dictator and I don't know why anyone takes anything he says seriously. There are bad hombres all around, including Assad himself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_groups_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War

Quote
But asked if some of those who fled are “aligned with terrorists,” Assad quickly replied, “Definitely.”
"Aligned" is quite a weasel word. I suppose he considers any person who lives in an area controlled by opposition groups is "aligned" with terrorists. And to be sure, ISIS controls a significant amount of territory, and there's no question about them. But we should be very skeptical of agreeing with Assad's definition of who's a terrorist and who isn't.

Quote
As for the future of Syria’s 4.8 million refugees, Assad said, “For me, the priority is to bring those citizens to their country, not to help them immigrate.”
Read: torture and murder the opposition.

Syria is a hellhole and I don't begrudge anyone trying to get out of there ASAP.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: yuneeq on February 09, 2017, 11:27:51 PM
Assad says everyone he's fighting in the Syrian Civil War are terrorists. He's a brutal dictator and I don't know why anyone takes anything he says seriously. There are bad hombres all around, including Assad himself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_groups_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War
 "Aligned" is quite a weasel word. I suppose he considers any person who lives in an area controlled by opposition groups is "aligned" with terrorists. And to be sure, ISIS controls a significant amount of territory, and there's no question about them. But we should be very skeptical of agreeing with Assad's definition of who's a terrorist and who isn't.
Read: torture and murder the opposition.

Syria is a hellhole and I don't begrudge anyone trying to get out of there ASAP.

Assad is not a good guy but he is not wrong.

1. "Aligned" was not the word he used. Reading comprehension fail.
2. He never claimed that there a substantial amount of terrorists, in fact he implied the opposite. Another fail. What was your point agin?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: yuneeq on February 12, 2017, 01:44:15 PM
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on February 12, 2017, 02:02:14 PM
Remember this not a Muslim ban. The same if the ban was for Beachwood and Kiryas Joel  that would not be a Jewish ban.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: yuneeq on February 12, 2017, 02:05:52 PM
Remember this not a Muslim ban. The same if the ban was for Beachwood and Kiryas Joel  that would not be a Jewish ban.

Call it whatever you want, if Jews acted like Muslims then it would justified as well.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: aygart on February 12, 2017, 02:10:44 PM
Remember this not a Muslim ban. The same if the ban was for Beachwood and Kiryas Joel  that would not be a Jewish ban.
is Beachwood majority Jewish?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: Dan on February 12, 2017, 02:18:50 PM
is Beachwood majority Jewish?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population_by_urban_areas
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on February 12, 2017, 02:24:14 PM
is Beachwood majority Jewish?
Why do you think I chose those two?  :)
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on February 12, 2017, 02:26:25 PM
Call it whatever you want, if Jews acted like Muslims then it would justified as well.
Do you use that same logic for all races and religions?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: aygart on February 12, 2017, 02:26:43 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population_by_urban_areas
Wow I didn't know that. Did they tailor the municipality to the Jewish community?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: Dan on February 12, 2017, 02:32:30 PM
Wow I didn't know that. Did they tailor the municipality to the Jewish community?
City was incorporated in 1915. Jews weren't allowed in Beachwood back then.
After WW2 Jews started moving in and wanted to build a Reform temple. The locals didn't want it and eventually the OH supreme court rules that they be allowed to build the temple.
Frum Jews started moving to Beachwood in the 60s. The Reform Jews didn't like that and it lead to this nasty fight:
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/08/13/magazine/the-jewish-tipping-point.html

Eventually the courts ruled in the shul's favor and there are now 5 massive shuls built right next to one another. It's impressive, but shortsighted though as makes all the houses within a mile of them cost 2-3x as much as housing outside of the mile costs.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: aygart on February 12, 2017, 02:41:47 PM
Remember this not a Muslim ban. The same if the ban was for Beachwood and Kiryas Joel  that would not be a Jewish ban.
The affected countries do not hold the same positions on this list
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: JTZ on February 12, 2017, 02:44:46 PM
The affected countries do not hold the same positions on this list
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country
Trumps doesn't know that.  ;)
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: aygart on February 12, 2017, 02:46:24 PM
Trumps doesn't know that.  ;)
I'm sure someone's tweeted it.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: BP16 on February 12, 2017, 02:51:52 PM
Do you use that same logic for all races and religions?
No other religion promots terror as Islam does! But if any other then yes why would any one won't a terrorist in their back yard.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: yuneeq on February 12, 2017, 03:39:28 PM
Do you use that same logic for all races and religions?

In theory yes. Though in reality it seems that the Muslims are the only ones who haven't noticed that the Crusades have been over for a while now.
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: good sam on February 12, 2017, 09:44:49 PM
Trumps doesn't know that.  ;)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170213/93842e85494a58b91c950b9b71eac123.jpg)
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: elit on February 12, 2017, 11:11:57 PM

I love how she talks to them "don't hurt us were not bothering you, we're leaving" the naivete of a liberal I guess it's fair that they expect israel to do that in the peace process
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: Emkay on March 04, 2017, 04:21:21 PM
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/03/world/europe/eu-visas-parliament-united-states.html?
Title: Re: Trump banning 7 major Muslim countries citizens entry into the US
Post by: elit on June 26, 2017, 01:38:39 PM
time to revive this thread