This topic has been locked by a moderator.
I agree with Trump on this one:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-israel-settlement-growth-not-good-peace-104054406.html
Of course, he had previously berated Obama for saying the same thing. But I’m glad he’s considering a more nuanced approach.
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
I agree with Trump on this one:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-israel-settlement-growth-not-good-peace-104054406.htmlOf course, he had previously berated Obama for saying the same thing. But I’m glad he’s considering a more nuanced approach.
Yeah but Trump just repeats whatever ideas the last person he spoke to suggested. He is scheduled to meet Netanyahu in 3-days, at which point he’ll no doubt have a different opinion.
VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.
^ The lady to Trump’s right. Who claps like that? It’s always amazing to me when grown people can’t clap like adults (Probably bad parenting LOL) but this is a new level. Unless she is using some form of secret sarcastic clap, in which case it’s awesome.
VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.
^Maybe the lady is honing her paddy-cake skills.
^Maybe she is telling people in sign language that Trump gave her “the clap”?
😉
I’m sure glad Trump is deporting all the violent criminals like this one, who put everyone’s life at risk.
That story was discussed some a ways back. Her fate had been decided before the travel ban and her family was already aware that she could face deportation depending on the decision.
Can’t wait to see the Trump reaction.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-sears-idUSKBN15Q0Q2
Major U.S. retailers Sears and Kmart this week removed 31 Trump Home items from their online product offerings to focus on more profitable items, a spokesman said on Saturday.
The decision follows retailer Nordstrom Inc’s announcement this week it had decided to stop carrying Ivanka Trump’s apparel because of declining sales, prompting President Donald Trump to take to Twitter to defend his daughter. White House spokesman Sean Spicer characterized the Nordstrom move as a “direct attack” on the president’s policies.
Neither Sears nor Kmart carried the Trump Home products in their retail stores, a Sears Holdings Corp spokesman said. Kmart is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sears Holdings.
“As part of the company’s initiative to optimize its online product assortment, we constantly refine that assortment to focus on our most profitable items,” spokesman Brian Hanover said in a statement.
In Trump’s defense, Sears and Kmart are actually failing, though.
Keep Circulating the Tapes.
END OF LINE
(It hasn’t happened yet)
Can’t wait to see the Trump reaction.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-sears-idUSKBN15Q0Q2
Major U.S. retailers Sears and Kmart this week removed 31 Trump Home items from their online product offerings to focus on more profitable items, a spokesman said on Saturday.
The decision follows retailer Nordstrom Inc’s announcement this week it had decided to stop carrying Ivanka Trump’s apparel because of declining sales, prompting President Donald Trump to take to Twitter to defend his daughter. White House spokesman Sean Spicer characterized the Nordstrom move as a “direct attack” on the president’s policies.
Neither Sears nor Kmart carried the Trump Home products in their retail stores, a Sears Holdings Corp spokesman said. Kmart is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sears Holdings.
“As part of the company’s initiative to optimize its online product assortment, we constantly refine that assortment to focus on our most profitable items,” spokesman Brian Hanover said in a statement.
In Trump’s defense, Sears and Kmart are actually failing, though.
Well sure but he won’t stand for this brutal attack on him either way.
Notable for being published by Jared Kushner’s site.
http://observer.com/2017/02/donald-trump-administration-mike-flynn-russian-embassy/
In a recent column, I explained how the still-forming Trump administration is already doing serious harm to America’s longstanding global intelligence partnerships. In particular, fears that the White House is too friendly to Moscow are causing close allies to curtail some of their espionage relationships with Washington—a development with grave implications for international security, particularly in the all-important realm of counterterrorism.
Now those concerns are causing problems much closer to home—in fact, inside the Beltway itself. Our Intelligence Community is so worried by the unprecedented problems of the Trump administration—not only do senior officials possess troubling ties to the Kremlin, there are nagging questions about basic competence regarding Team Trump—that it is beginning to withhold intelligence from a White House which our spies do not trust.
I’m sure glad Trump is deporting all the violent criminals like this one, who put everyone’s life at risk.
You know, it is not that I don’t want to show mercy and understanding and concern especially for her kids, but she was technically in the country illegally, yes? I don’t know what should be done in cases like this, I don’t want her split up from her kids. But I don’t think the fact that she was here illegally should just be forgotten. I think this is part of problem we have we when discuss this with the more conservative minded. It is like we want to just forget that she technically broke the law when she came into this country. Yes, she was not putting anyone life at risk, and she was peaceful. That should be fairly considered. I just don’t think the bit about her technically being here illegally should be forgotten though. (This should not be read to mean I think she should have been deported. I don’t know what should be done with cases like her’s and many others)
I’m sure glad Trump is deporting all the violent criminals like this one, who put everyone’s life at risk.
You know, it is not that I don’t want to show mercy and understanding and concern especially for her kids, but she was technically in the country illegally, yes? I don’t know what should be done in cases like this, I don’t want her split up from her kids. But I don’t think the fact that she was here illegally should just be forgotten. I think this is part of problem we have we when discuss this with the more conservative minded. It is like we want to just forget that she technically broke the law when she came into this country. Yes, she was not putting anyone life at risk, and she was peaceful. That should be fairly considered. I just don’t think the bit about her technically being here illegally should be forgotten though. (This should not be read to mean I think she should have been deported. I don’t know what should be done with cases like her’s and many others)
The solution is simple: a path to citizenship. Deportation is just an absolute cruelty, there’s no other way around it. How she got in shouldn’t matter - the laws here that don’t have statutes of limitations are heinous crimes and there isn’t anything heinous about what she did.
Can’t wait to see the Trump reaction.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-sears-idUSKBN15Q0Q2
Major U.S. retailers Sears and Kmart this week removed 31 Trump Home items from their online product offerings to focus on more profitable items, a spokesman said on Saturday.
The decision follows retailer Nordstrom Inc’s announcement this week it had decided to stop carrying Ivanka Trump’s apparel because of declining sales, prompting President Donald Trump to take to Twitter to defend his daughter. White House spokesman Sean Spicer characterized the Nordstrom move as a “direct attack” on the president’s policies.
Neither Sears nor Kmart carried the Trump Home products in their retail stores, a Sears Holdings Corp spokesman said. Kmart is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sears Holdings.
“As part of the company’s initiative to optimize its online product assortment, we constantly refine that assortment to focus on our most profitable items,” spokesman Brian Hanover said in a statement.
In Trump’s defense, Sears and Kmart are actually failing, though.
Yeah, they are failing, but they have attacked Trump depending on how one reads legalese. At this point, them removing Trump brand items could be seen in a number of ways, but they know the law enough to know how to publicly state why they’re doing it without incurring any lawsuits. This is the new way of doing business with the way the political landscape is reforming.
It all comes down to money no matter how anyone releases a statement.
With the FBI still having 1,000 open investigations on the books (which has also been made public and mentioned by me numerous times) makes it just as tough and those were set up based on the previous administrations policy.
Don’t you think we should finish getting these investigations finished before creating a far bigger back log?
I looked for a while tonight and couldn’t find an article about thousands of open investigations at the FBI… on immigrants? On potential immigrants? If you have a link, I’ll take a look at it (bonus points if it’s from the FBI itself). But if the FBI is suspicious of someone, I assume the case stays open until they find solid evidence one way or another. It’s tough to close a case (and I’d say that’s a good thing), especially if the person you’re suspicious about hasn’t really shown up on the radar yet.
I can give you this …
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/22/us/fbi-terror-ahmad-khan-rahami.html?_r=0
I apologize for the late reply but it’s been a long few days and I wanted to give these articles a thorough read and good consideration.
The first article seems to more or less corroborate my point: it’s a very difficult task. A lot of these guys don’t show up on the radar until it’s too late, and even when they do (like Omar Mateen) it’s hard to gather the intel you need to actually make a move within legal channels before they carry out their attacks, and we can’t just go around arresting people for posting positive things about ISIL on the Internet because of our Bill of Rights. There’s a really fine line that the FBI and CIA walk between keeping people safe and overstepping our rights. Not to mention Omar Mateen was born in the US and was thus considered a citizen as much as you (assuming you were born in the US) or myself, and from all accounts his parents were model citizens who immigrated in the 80s (long before Obama was President). No humane or reasonable immigration law would have prevented this.
It also talks about how cases stay on the books until actionable data is obtained which leads to an arrest. I’m really okay with that. Let the FBI have thousands of open cases in my opinion, because it means that they’re watching people who they’ve deemed are risks. I would be angry if they watched a guy for a couple of years and then closed the case because he seemed okay, and then he blew up a school. That would be far worse to me than knowing they had an open book on him at the time of his attack and just didn’t have the evidence to make an arrest.
Sometimes they do get that evidence, though:
In May, the parents of a young man in Queens told the authorities that their 18-year-old son, Ranbir Singh Shergill, had threatened family members. After the parents gave officers consent to search the home, members of an F.B.I. terrorism task force found a handgun, several magazines and 118 rounds of ammunition. They also found a note that discussed killing police officers. The F.B.I. charged Mr. Shergill in June with buying a gun in Ohio using fake identification and transporting it to New York.
From what I can see, Shergill’s family are great Americans who should be lauded for having the guts to implicate their son as a possible terrorist, and it looks to me like that tip stopped what could have been a loss of life set off by a guy who wasn’t even on the FBI’s radar yet.
And a blurb from it …
The threat has only grown since Sept. 11, 2001, and more recently with the rise of the Islamic State. In recent years, the F.B.I. has averaged 10,000 assessments annually, and 7,000 to 10,000 preliminary or full investigations involving international terrorism. In addition, the F.B.I. receives tens of thousands of terrorism tips. All of those have to be tracked down, as in the case involving Mr. Rahami. That does not include information the F.B.I. learns from foreign partners, war zones or American agencies. Most investigations never end in prosecution.
To address this, yes, it’s a dangerous world. And yeah, the FBI is probably overworked, but if there were fewer immigrants, would they be able to prevent more attacks? I don’t know if we can say that for sure. If the investigations don’t end in prosecutions, I assume they’re not finding actionable intel and thus cannot take the next step towards an arrest either because there isn’t any wrongdoing or because they can’t find it. From the sentence above your blurb:
Nobody expects the police to prevent every homicide in Chicago or Los Angeles, or to prevent public corruption or eliminate drugs. But the expectation among many Americans is that the F.B.I. should stop every terrorist attack. Former and current F.B.I. officials accept the reality that the bureau faces a different standard.
They’d have more time to work on specific cases, definitely, but we can’t say with certainty that it would lead to more prevention because, again, a lot of the time these guys don’t do anything illegal until they’re actively killing people. So it’s not so much a “backlog” of cases taking up resources, it’s more that they’re actively keeping an eye on possible threats and not ruling anything out until they have firm intel with which to make a move. Sometimes the cops stop the robbers, but sometimes the robbers get away with it. It’s the nature of law enforcement within the boundaries of American law: everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Is it wrong to deny rights to the majority because of the misdeeds of the few? As a pro-gun person, I think strongly that it is. Why should I lose my rights because certain other people would use them for evil? Why should we deny everyone from Syria because they have some evil people? Should Americans be denied from visiting other countries because we have hate groups and terrorists of our own?
In the meantime, the F.B.I. and the Justice Department have prosecuted more than 100 cases involving the Islamic State. Officials say those are the cases that the public tends to overlook, as well as all the other plots they have stopped.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/4/obama-administration-fails-to-check-immigrants-aga/
Obviously a failure for sure, certainly not malicious, though. Trusting computers is tough, and transitions from paper to digital records are always rife with these kinds of issues. Luckily they discovered the problem and I feel like it was handled well by halting all immigration until the proper checks had been applied. It looks like only 175 (out of 15,000 who were still working through the process) were actually fully approved before the issue was caught and of those 175 people, anyone who was flagged by the retroactive checks would have been stripped of their citizenship. Not a good thing to happen, definitely, but it seems to have been handled as well as it could have been.
What I’m getting from this article is that Trump is fear-mongering. Correlation isn’t always causation, but I feel that Trump would have us believe that it is. As the article says:
“Just because someone is being investigated for terrorism does not mean that the terrorism threat is up,” said Laura Dugan, a University of Maryland professor of criminology and criminal justice. “It just means that the FBI is increasing investigations.”
It also goes on to say that:
According to the New America Foundation, about 81 percent of individuals accused of jihadist terrorism crimes since Sept. 11 are citizens or legal residents and about 48 percent were born with U.S. citizenship.
And:
A New York Times analysis in 2015 found that half of the jihadist attacks since 2001 were committed by men born in the United States. Many others were naturalized citizens.
Other databases show some information related to tracking terrorism but didn’t reflect the full number of FBI investigations.
George Washington University collects data on the number of individuals charged with offenses related to the Islamic State. There were 61 individuals in 2015 and 33 individuals in 2016 charged with ISIS-related activity. The university reported that the vast majority were Americans.
[. . .]
The number of cases can rise if the FBI decides to make suspected terrorists more of a priority — but that doesn’t necessarily mean there is more terrorism. Also, not all terrorism cases carry the same level of threat. A charge against someone for material support is not the same as charging someone accused of carrying out an attack. Also, only some investigations lead to actual charges and then convictions.
American University professor Tricia Bacon, who worked in counterrorism for the State Department from 2003-13, said that only FBI headquarters could credibly measure whether the FBI is investigating more people than ever before for terrorism and why.
John Mueller, an adjunct political science professor at Ohio State University and senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, said that the FBI has followed up on millions of terrorism leads since Sept. 11, 2001.
“Although scarcely any develop into anything, the FBI continues and is probably getting more efficient at it, made more so by the fact that so many would-be terrorists announce their intentions (or fantasies) on Facebook and Twitter,” he said.
And finally:
Max Abrahms, assistant professor of political science at Northeastern University, said he wouldn’t be surprised if the number of people under investigation by the FBI for terrorism is unprecedented. However, he noted some problems with attempting to ban people from certain countries.
“No nation has a monopoly on terrorists,” he said. “And no nation is exempt from producing them. Furthermore, the ban does not affect domestic terrorism, which is a growing concern, by not only Islamists, but also right-wing extremists.”
So I’m just not convinced that the FBI having un-closed cases is a bad thing, even if they had millions of them. It just means that they’re doing their job trying to keep us safe. Do they fail? Of course. As I said before, sometimes these guys don’t commit an illegal act or even show up on the radar until they’re actively killing people. Not every murder can be prevented, nor every bank robbery or car theft or jaywalk stopped. There are limitations placed on the system by our Bill of Rights. Even the FBI can’t see everything, and frankly I’m okay with that because it means they’re not explicitly impinging on our rights as Americans. I am happy to take my chances in a free world.
And looking at the data provided in the last article, I’m really not convinced that less immigration will mean less terrorism. The majority are people who made it through the grueling citizenship process without raising so much as a suspicion of doubt. Would looking super extra closely at them change anything about that? I’m not sure it would. Were they terrorists before coming in with the plan to destroy the country, or were they normal people who wanted a new life and were then radicalized? I can’t answer that, but maybe we should stop and ask ourselves if we’re doing everything we can to provide an accepting, trusting country where immigrants can feel at home and will want to assimilate into society, or are we providing a country where they feel hated, distrusted, discriminated against, and unwanted?
This is a holistic issue that requires a holistic answer. Even stopping all immigration completely won’t change anything, and would likely make things worse. Would walking across the street to invite your new Muslim neighbor and his family to your annual neighborhood BBQ (no pork of course!) instead of ignoring their existence help them feel more accepted and like they fit in? I can’t say that, either, but it sure can’t hurt.
Keep Circulating the Tapes.
END OF LINE
(It hasn’t happened yet)
With the FBI still having 1,000 open investigations on the books (which has also been made public and mentioned by me numerous times) makes it just as tough and those were set up based on the previous administrations policy.
Don’t you think we should finish getting these investigations finished before creating a far bigger back log?
I looked for a while tonight and couldn’t find an article about thousands of open investigations at the FBI… on immigrants? On potential immigrants? If you have a link, I’ll take a look at it (bonus points if it’s from the FBI itself). But if the FBI is suspicious of someone, I assume the case stays open until they find solid evidence one way or another. It’s tough to close a case (and I’d say that’s a good thing), especially if the person you’re suspicious about hasn’t really shown up on the radar yet.
I can give you this …
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/22/us/fbi-terror-ahmad-khan-rahami.html?_r=0
I apologize for the late reply but it’s been a long few days and I wanted to give these articles a thorough read and good consideration.
The first article seems to more or less corroborate my point: it’s a very difficult task. A lot of these guys don’t show up on the radar until it’s too late, and even when they do (like Omar Mateen) it’s hard to gather the intel you need to actually make a move within legal channels before they carry out their attacks, and we can’t just go around arresting people for posting positive things about ISIL on the Internet because of our Bill of Rights. There’s a really fine line that the FBI and CIA walk between keeping people safe and overstepping our rights. Not to mention Omar Mateen was born in the US and was thus considered a citizen as much as you (assuming you were born in the US) or myself, and from all accounts his parents were model citizens who immigrated in the 80s (long before Obama was President). No humane or reasonable immigration law would have prevented this.
It also talks about how cases stay on the books until actionable data is obtained which leads to an arrest. I’m really okay with that. Let the FBI have thousands of open cases in my opinion, because it means that they’re watching people who they’ve deemed are risks. I would be angry if they watched a guy for a couple of years and then closed the case because he seemed okay, and then he blew up a school. That would be far worse to me than knowing they had an open book on him at the time of his attack and just didn’t have the evidence to make an arrest.
Sometimes they do get that evidence, though:
In May, the parents of a young man in Queens told the authorities that their 18-year-old son, Ranbir Singh Shergill, had threatened family members. After the parents gave officers consent to search the home, members of an F.B.I. terrorism task force found a handgun, several magazines and 118 rounds of ammunition. They also found a note that discussed killing police officers. The F.B.I. charged Mr. Shergill in June with buying a gun in Ohio using fake identification and transporting it to New York.
From what I can see, Shergill’s family are great Americans who should be lauded for having the guts to implicate their son as a possible terrorist, and it looks to me like that tip stopped what could have been a loss of life set off by a guy who wasn’t even on the FBI’s radar yet.And a blurb from it …
The threat has only grown since Sept. 11, 2001, and more recently with the rise of the Islamic State. In recent years, the F.B.I. has averaged 10,000 assessments annually, and 7,000 to 10,000 preliminary or full investigations involving international terrorism. In addition, the F.B.I. receives tens of thousands of terrorism tips. All of those have to be tracked down, as in the case involving Mr. Rahami. That does not include information the F.B.I. learns from foreign partners, war zones or American agencies. Most investigations never end in prosecution.
To address this, yes, it’s a dangerous world. And yeah, the FBI is probably overworked, but if there were fewer immigrants, would they be able to prevent more attacks? I don’t know if we can say that for sure. If the investigations don’t end in prosecutions, I assume they’re not finding actionable intel and thus cannot take the next step towards an arrest either because there isn’t any wrongdoing or because they can’t find it. From the sentence above your blurb:
Nobody expects the police to prevent every homicide in Chicago or Los Angeles, or to prevent public corruption or eliminate drugs. But the expectation among many Americans is that the F.B.I. should stop every terrorist attack. Former and current F.B.I. officials accept the reality that the bureau faces a different standard.
They’d have more time to work on specific cases, definitely, but we can’t say with certainty that it would lead to more prevention because, again, a lot of the time these guys don’t do anything illegal until they’re actively killing people. So it’s not so much a “backlog” of cases taking up resources, it’s more that they’re actively keeping an eye on possible threats and not ruling anything out until they have firm intel with which to make a move. Sometimes the cops stop the robbers, but sometimes the robbers get away with it. It’s the nature of law enforcement within the boundaries of American law: everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Is it wrong to deny rights to the majority because of the misdeeds of the few? As a pro-gun person, I think strongly that it is. Why should I lose my rights because certain other people would use them for evil? Why should we deny everyone from Syria because they have some evil people? Should Americans be denied from visiting other countries because we have hate groups and terrorists of our own?
In the meantime, the F.B.I. and the Justice Department have prosecuted more than 100 cases involving the Islamic State. Officials say those are the cases that the public tends to overlook, as well as all the other plots they have stopped.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/4/obama-administration-fails-to-check-immigrants-aga/
Obviously a failure for sure, certainly not malicious, though. Trusting computers is tough, and transitions from paper to digital records are always rife with these kinds of issues. Luckily they discovered the problem and I feel like it was handled well by halting all immigration until the proper checks had been applied. It looks like only 175 (out of 15,000 who were still working through the process) were actually fully approved before the issue was caught and of those 175 people, anyone who was flagged by the retroactive checks would have been stripped of their citizenship. Not a good thing to happen, definitely, but it seems to have been handled as well as it could have been.
What I’m getting from this article is that Trump is fear-mongering. Correlation isn’t always causation, but I feel that Trump would have us believe that it is. As the article says:
“Just because someone is being investigated for terrorism does not mean that the terrorism threat is up,” said Laura Dugan, a University of Maryland professor of criminology and criminal justice. “It just means that the FBI is increasing investigations.”
It also goes on to say that:
According to the New America Foundation, about 81 percent of individuals accused of jihadist terrorism crimes since Sept. 11 are citizens or legal residents and about 48 percent were born with U.S. citizenship.
And:
A New York Times analysis in 2015 found that half of the jihadist attacks since 2001 were committed by men born in the United States. Many others were naturalized citizens.
Other databases show some information related to tracking terrorism but didn’t reflect the full number of FBI investigations.
George Washington University collects data on the number of individuals charged with offenses related to the Islamic State. There were 61 individuals in 2015 and 33 individuals in 2016 charged with ISIS-related activity. The university reported that the vast majority were Americans.
[. . .]
The number of cases can rise if the FBI decides to make suspected terrorists more of a priority — but that doesn’t necessarily mean there is more terrorism. Also, not all terrorism cases carry the same level of threat. A charge against someone for material support is not the same as charging someone accused of carrying out an attack. Also, only some investigations lead to actual charges and then convictions.
American University professor Tricia Bacon, who worked in counterrorism for the State Department from 2003-13, said that only FBI headquarters could credibly measure whether the FBI is investigating more people than ever before for terrorism and why.
John Mueller, an adjunct political science professor at Ohio State University and senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, said that the FBI has followed up on millions of terrorism leads since Sept. 11, 2001.
“Although scarcely any develop into anything, the FBI continues and is probably getting more efficient at it, made more so by the fact that so many would-be terrorists announce their intentions (or fantasies) on Facebook and Twitter,” he said.
And finally:
Max Abrahms, assistant professor of political science at Northeastern University, said he wouldn’t be surprised if the number of people under investigation by the FBI for terrorism is unprecedented. However, he noted some problems with attempting to ban people from certain countries.
“No nation has a monopoly on terrorists,” he said. “And no nation is exempt from producing them. Furthermore, the ban does not affect domestic terrorism, which is a growing concern, by not only Islamists, but also right-wing extremists.”
So I’m just not convinced that the FBI having un-closed cases is a bad thing, even if they had millions of them. It just means that they’re doing their job trying to keep us safe. Do they fail? Of course. As I said before, sometimes these guys don’t commit an illegal act or even show up on the radar until they’re actively killing people. Not every murder can be prevented, nor every bank robbery or car theft or jaywalk stopped. There are limitations placed on the system by our Bill of Rights. Even the FBI can’t see everything, and frankly I’m okay with that because it means they’re not explicitly impinging on our rights as Americans. I am happy to take my chances in a free world.
And looking at the data provided in the last article, I’m really not convinced that less immigration will mean less terrorism. The majority are people who made it through the grueling citizenship process without raising so much as a suspicion of doubt. Would looking super extra closely at them change anything about that? I’m not sure it would. Were they terrorists before coming in with the plan to destroy the country, or were they normal people who wanted a new life and were then radicalized? I can’t answer that, but maybe we should stop and ask ourselves if we’re doing everything we can to provide an accepting, trusting country where immigrants can feel at home and will want to assimilate into society, or are we providing a country where they feel hated, distrusted, discriminated against, and unwanted?
This is a holistic issue that requires a holistic answer. Even stopping all immigration completely won’t change anything, and would likely make things worse. Would walking across the street to invite your new Muslim neighbor and his family to your annual neighborhood BBQ (no pork of course!) instead of ignoring their existence help them feel more accepted and like they fit in? I can’t say that, either, but it sure can’t hurt.
Thanks for the well thought out and worded response. I know the system isn’t perfect. I don’t believe that they are considering making the “vetting” process itself any more vigorous, I believe they are looking at options we haven’t heard about yet. We may not hear about them either. The travel ban itself, as I take it, was meant and instituted as a warning to those hiding amongst the innocent refugees. When you can’t get information about someone because they aren’t from where they say they are and where they are from is a known bad place, they’re never going to make the right choice because someone is always going to oppose it.
Being creative and changing things up can put a damper on ill conceived plans because predictability has gone out the window. The harder they have to work to get in, the easier it becomes for them to make a mistake, which can technically make it easier for them to be caught before they get to their destination.
Their have been consequences to the meddling our Presidents have been doing, to de-stabilize regions in favor of democracy and there have been casualties, on all sides. American taxpayers lost millions of dollars when Obama and Clinton armed what they thought were rebels who then went to Syria and announced the formation of ISIL with all the American resources they received. Bush tore things up over there to and left a mess for Obama. Now Trump has whatever mess Obama left from the other messes. It’s not as easy, for me, to hate a President because they are trying to find different ways to clean up anothers mess while still getting done what they promised they could do for Americans.
If there is one thing that is certain, it’s that this is going to be a hard road, but I believe we can endure.
I’m sure glad Trump is deporting all the violent criminals like this one, who put everyone’s life at risk.
You know, it is not that I don’t want to show mercy and understanding and concern especially for her kids, but she was technically in the country illegally, yes? I don’t know what should be done in cases like this, I don’t want her split up from her kids. But I don’t think the fact that she was here illegally should just be forgotten. I think this is part of problem we have we when discuss this with the more conservative minded. It is like we want to just forget that she technically broke the law when she came into this country. Yes, she was not putting anyone life at risk, and she was peaceful. That should be fairly considered. I just don’t think the bit about her technically being here illegally should be forgotten though. (This should not be read to mean I think she should have been deported. I don’t know what should be done with cases like her’s and many others)
The solution is simple: a path to citizenship.
Perhaps. I am certainly open to that.
Deportation is just an absolute cruelty, there’s no other way around it.
It is really? When she is here illegally and the law says it is perfectly legal to deport here?
How she got in shouldn’t matter -
I disagree. I think it does matter that she came here illegally.
the laws here that don’t have statutes of limitations are heinous crimes and there isn’t anything heinous about what she did.
This isn’t about a statute of limitations. Deportation is not that same as arresting someone and charging them with a crime. Just because someone that illegally crossed the border, somehow managed to evade deportation for certain amount of time does not change that person’s status from being here illegally to being here legally. It doesn’t make said person a legal immigrant, it doesn’t make them a citizen, you don’t get visa just for evading deportation for a certain amount of time. Let me put it another way: lets say someone steals something from your house. You might be able to argue that after a certain period of time, that person should be charged for the theft. But should that mean that what the person stole now legally belongs to him/her?
Deportation is just an absolute cruelty, there’s no other way around it.
It is really? When she is here illegally and the law says it is perfectly legal to deport here?
You don’t think separating her from her children is cruel?
Deportation is just an absolute cruelty, there’s no other way around it.
It is really? When she is here illegally and the law says it is perfectly legal to deport here?
You don’t think separating her from her children is cruel?
Yes, I agree it is. When he said it was an absolute cruelty, I thought he meant in general, not this specific case. Of course, I don’t this it should be forgotten, that she had kids here knowing she was here illegally and knowing that she could be deported at any time and separated from them. Again I want to merciful and understand and don’t necessarily want to deport her and I don’t want to separate her from her kids. I just don’t think her part in creating this situation should be forgotten.
I said it earlier and I’ll say it again. All reports on this woman have clearly stated that the entire family knew she might get deported well before it happened, her case was pending. Even on the news when they interviewed the family, they said it openly.
Now, it sucks that they are separated, but it was no more a surprise than her being legally arrested for being caught with the forged legal documents that got her into the country and the job that she was working when ICE raided it.
Another thing that I think shouldn’t be forgotten is that sometime people that are here illegally, decide have kids for the purpose of trying to prevent deportation. I am not saying it is the case with this woman, but it does occur.
Even when that’s the case, it’s not the kids’ fault and it’s shitty to take their parents away if the parents did nothing illegal beyond coming to this country.
Gee, I wonder why Trump wants to de-fang the FEC. Probably because of the inconvenient facts.
Gee, I wonder why Trump wants to de-fang the FEC. Probably because of the inconvenient facts.
Nice.
Keep Circulating the Tapes.
END OF LINE
(It hasn’t happened yet)
Even when that’s the case, it’s not the kids’ fault and it’s shitty to take their parents away if the parents did nothing illegal beyond coming to this country.
It’s such a grey area. I’m really not sure where I come down on the topic myself. It’s a terrible thing, but illegal is illegal… but at the same time, the kids shouldn’t lose their parents… but you can’t deport the kids… but you can’t just be letting people come in illegally and have kids and stay and take precedent over those people who are working their way through legal channels because that encourages it…
It’s a really complex topic that there’s really no right answer for, to be honest. Personally, what I think is that we need to focus on is working on making our immigration system more expedient, and more importantly, helping to elevate Mexico into a country that people don’t feel the need to flee), for a start.
Keep Circulating the Tapes.
END OF LINE
(It hasn’t happened yet)