• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Most Support Temporary Ban on Newcomers from Terrorist Havens

zimmer said:
Yes... that was before there was proof.

Many on the Left think the world still is flat concerning this issue, as we've witnessed terror attacks from Mulsims all over the world... and those doing the vetting were prohibited from looking at social media!!!

90-days to set up a system... to protect Americans. So bad... so, so bad.
Click to expand...

Proof of what?
 
zimmer said:
57% in favor.

33% not.

And Thee Left... with their Blame Scream Media... strike out again.
Click to expand...

Rasmussen? Before I even checked the link I figured it must be from them.

And next on Rasmussen...a survey that says 98% of Americans believe Reagan was Jesus AND 99% of Americans believe everything in the Bible is true.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Refugees whose lives are disrupted and endangered must wait three months more.... How caring.
Click to expand...

Well- what should the US President care more about -refugees form other countries or the safety of US citizens?
 
Manc Skipper said:
Refugees whose lives are disrupted and endangered must wait three months more.... How caring.
Click to expand...

Cubans, no terror threat, risking their lives to escape Cuba, returned back to Cuba thanks to Obama.

Returned back to Cuba to face what?
 
KLATTU said:
Well- what should the US President care more about -refugees form other countries or the safety of US citizens?
Click to expand...

Most liberals don't care about Americans because they hate this country.
 
KLATTU said:
Well- what should the US President care more about -refugees form other countries or the safety of US citizens?
Click to expand...

Ohhh don't ask a Lib such a simple question.

Their history reveals America doesn't come first.
 
DA60 said:
Rasmussen? Before I even checked the link I figured it must be from them.

And next on Rasmussen...a survey that says 98% of Americans believe Reagan was Jesus AND 99% of Americans believe everything in the Bible is true.
Click to expand...
Rasmussen is a very accomplished polling outfit. When you see a poll on a hot button issue liked this, you know going in the results can fluctuate wildly on a daily basis. But that's not Rasmussens' fault.
 
reinoe said:
Most liberals don't care about Americans because they hate this country.
Click to expand...

Most... many... it's a vast swath, that's for sure.

They surely are an odd, unpatriotic lot. I wish they could leave for 5-years and see what they're giving up.
 
reinoe said:
The protesters certainly aren't.
Click to expand...

Informed and rational might be the wrong words, but in the case of the current crop of protestors, emotional would be a better word. Emotional and brave to speak truth to power.

How many muslim countries, including those on the list and all other muslim countries, have invaded another country, muslim or Christian or jewish?

How many Christian countries have invaded or attacked muslim countries?

Based on that, which is a greater threat to the US--muslim visitors or Christian visitors?
 
zimmer said:
They're closing down incoming from those 7 countries for 3-months.

Making America Safe Again.
Click to expand...

Safe from gun crime and mass shootings? How will that be achieved?
 
Thoreau72 said:
Informed and rational might be the wrong words, but in the case of the current crop of protestors, emotional would be a better word. Emotional and brave to speak truth to power.

How many muslim countries, including those on the list and all other muslim countries, have invaded another country, muslim or Christian or jewish?

How many Christian countries have invaded or attacked muslim countries?

Based on that, which is a greater threat to the US--muslim visitors or Christian visitors?
Click to expand...
You can bend and stretch as much as you like, but Trump's actions have nothing to do with the Muslim faith.
 
reinoe said:
You can bend and stretch as much as you like, but Trump's actions have nothing to do with the Muslim faith.
Click to expand...

Actually it does, since Trump was the one that stated he wanted a Muslim ban. However, the guy IS smart to know he would get challenged on a Muslim ban so he did the smart thing and did like many presidents have done before him and he did a ban on countries (which does have a precedent).

You can play word games all you want and you would be correct that this isn't a Muslim ban, however, given his past speeches it definitely is the undertone of his ban. To deny it would be silly since the man has said as such before. He's just covered his ass legally, which is fine.

What I do have a problem with is he really should have consulted the GOP congress on this because they could have avoided the holdups such as airport travel in progress and such, instead of reactionary like he did. It should have been better planned, but I will say what he did was perfectly legal and does have a precedence.
 
ocean515 said:
Yes, this is true. It's a shame their own countrymen care so little about them that their only choice is to flee.
Click to expand...

And a bigger shame that a signatory to the Geneva Converntions and other treaties should abrogate its obligations.
 
Manc Skipper said:
And a bigger shame that a signatory to the Geneva Converntions and other treaties should abrogate its obligations.
Click to expand...

No treaty requires a Nation to take actions that threaten it's security in order to fulfill them. This temporary hold will allow the current Administration to review the process and adopt any necessary changes they believe prudent. At that time, refugees will once again be afforded the opportunity to enter the US.

You need a better appeal to emotion. Perhaps one based on facts, rather than feelings.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Informed and rational might be the wrong words, but in the case of the current crop of protestors, emotional would be a better word. Emotional and brave to speak truth to power.

How many muslim countries, including those on the list and all other muslim countries, have invaded another country, muslim or Christian or jewish?

How many Christian countries have invaded or attacked muslim countries?

Based on that, which is a greater threat to the US--muslim visitors or Christian visitors?
Click to expand...

Muslims , by far. Wouldn't they be a little ticked off that the Christian country invaded a Muslim country.
 
danarhea said:
Saudi Arabia, Yemen, UAE, Egypt? Where are they on the list? Oh, that's right. people from the nations that actually attacked us are not on the list.

This thread is a joke, just like Trump.
Click to expand...
The difference between Saudi Arabia and Syria (as an example) is night and day. Saudi Arabia has records that can be used to check the legal status of their citizens. Sudi government and officials are in control of their printing presses and document stores. Saudi Arabia's infrastructure is intact. Thats probably why Barrack Obama didnt name them as on of the top 7 potential threat countries. https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-restrictions-visa-waiver-program

Conversely...the Obama administrations top security officials including the heads of Homeland, the FBI, etc all acknowledged it is IMPOSSIBLE to properly vet Syrian refugees.
James B. Comey, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice: “We can only query against that which we have collected. And so if someone has not made a ripple in the pond in Syria on a way that would get their identity or their interests reflected in our databases, we can query our databases until the cows come home but nothing will show up because we have no record of that person…You can only query what you have collected. And with respect to Iraqi refugees, we had far more in our databases because of our country’s work there for a decade. [The case of vetting Syrian refugees] is a different situation.” (10/21/15)

Jeh C. Johnson, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security: “It is true that we are not going to know a whole lot about the Syrians that come forth in this process… That is definitely a challenge….We know that organizations like ISIL might like to exploit this [Syrian refugee resettlement] program…The good news is that we are better at [vetting] than we were eight years ago. The bad news is that there is no risk-free process.” (10/21/15)

Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Director, National Counterterrorism Center, Office of the Director of National Intelligence: “The intelligence picture we’ve had of this [Syrian] conflict zone isn’t what we’d like it to be…you can only review [refugees’ submitted background data] against what you have.” (10/8/15)

James B. Comey, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice: “There is risk associated with bringing anybody in from the outside, but especially from a conflict zone like [Syria]… My concern there [about bringing Syrian refugees into the United States] is that there are certain gaps I don’t want to talk about publicly in the data available to us.” (10/8/15)

Jeh C. Johnson, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security: “But [the Syrian refugees are] a population of people that we’re not going to know a whole lot about.” (10/8/15)
https://homeland.house.gov/press/nations-top-security-officials-concerns-on-refugee-vetting/

So its awesome as a regurgitated talking point...but factually...comparing SA to Syria is foolish.
 
KLATTU said:
Well- what should the US President care more about -refugees form other countries or the safety of US citizens?
Click to expand...
Thats not really a fair question. Asked appropriately, it should be...

Since Obama banned all refugee applications for 6 solid months from Iraq, what should a democrat president care more about--refugees form other countries or the safety of US citizens?
And the answer of course would be "I blindly support anything Obama did"

THEN you should follow it up with part two...
Since Donald Trump is using the Obama administrations guidance and following the security counsel of the Obama administrations top officials regarding the vetting processes, what should a republican president care more about--refugees form other countries or the safety of US citizens?
And the answer of course is "**** Donald Trump! You think he is going to get cooperation from us? **** him! Resist everything! **** Donald Trump and **** anyone that supports him!" Oh yeah...and "Love Trumps Hate!"
 
ocean515 said:
No treaty requires a Nation to take actions that threaten it's security in order to fulfill them. This temporary hold will allow the current Administration to review the process and adopt any necessary changes they believe prudent. At that time, refugees will once again be afforded the opportunity to enter the US.

You need a better appeal to emotion. Perhaps one based on facts, rather than feelings.
Click to expand...

" ...Rights and responsibilities of parties to the Refugee Convention[edit]

In the general principle of international law, treaties in force are binding upon the parties to it and must be performed in good faith.
Countries that have ratified the Refugee Convention are obliged to protect refugees that are on their territory, in accordance with its terms.[11]
There are a number of provisions that States parties to the Refugee Convention must adhere to.
Refugees shall abide by the national laws of the contracting states (Article 2)

The contracting states shall exempt refugees from reciprocity (Article 7): That means that the granting of a right to a refugee should not be subject to the granting of similar treatment by the refugee's country of nationality, because refugees do not enjoy the protection of their home state.[11]
be able to take provisional measures against a refugee if needed in the interest of essential national security (Article 9)
respect a refugee's personal status and the rights that come with it, particularly rights related to marriage (Article 12)
provide free access to courts for refugees (Article 16)
provide administrative assistance for refugees (Article 25)
provide identity papers for refugees (Article 27)
provide travel documents for refugees (Article 28)
allow refugees to transfer their assets (Article 30)
provide the possibility of assimilation and naturalization to refugees (Article 34)
cooperate with the UNHCR (Article 35) in the exercise of its functions and to help UNHCR supervise the implementation of the provisions in the Convention.[11]
provide information on any national legislation they may adopt to ensure the application of the Convention (Article 36).[11]
settle disutes they may have with other contracting states at the International Court of Justice if not otherwise possible (Article 38) "
 
Manc Skipper said:
" ...Rights and responsibilities of parties to the Refugee Convention[edit]

In the general principle of international law, treaties in force are binding upon the parties to it and must be performed in good faith.
Countries that have ratified the Refugee Convention are obliged to protect refugees that are on their territory, in accordance with its terms.[11]
There are a number of provisions that States parties to the Refugee Convention must adhere to.
Refugees shall abide by the national laws of the contracting states (Article 2)

The contracting states shall exempt refugees from reciprocity (Article 7): That means that the granting of a right to a refugee should not be subject to the granting of similar treatment by the refugee's country of nationality, because refugees do not enjoy the protection of their home state.[11]
be able to take provisional measures against a refugee if needed in the interest of essential national security (Article 9)
respect a refugee's personal status and the rights that come with it, particularly rights related to marriage (Article 12)
provide free access to courts for refugees (Article 16)
provide administrative assistance for refugees (Article 25)
provide identity papers for refugees (Article 27)
provide travel documents for refugees (Article 28)
allow refugees to transfer their assets (Article 30)
provide the possibility of assimilation and naturalization to refugees (Article 34)
cooperate with the UNHCR (Article 35) in the exercise of its functions and to help UNHCR supervise the implementation of the provisions in the Convention.[11]
provide information on any national legislation they may adopt to ensure the application of the Convention (Article 36).[11]
settle disutes they may have with other contracting states at the International Court of Justice if not otherwise possible (Article 38) "
Click to expand...

Now that you dug that up, could you post the part of these treaties where the signatories are required to open their doors to their enemies who are sworn to destroy them?
 
VanceMack said:
Thats not really a fair question. Asked appropriately, it should be...

Since Obama banned all refugee applications for 6 solid months from Iraq, what should a democrat president care more about--refugees form other countries or the safety of US citizens?
And the answer of course would be "I blindly support anything Obama did"

THEN you should follow it up with part two...
Since Donald Trump is using the Obama administrations guidance and following the security counsel of the Obama administrations top officials regarding the vetting processes, what should a republican president care more about--refugees form other countries or the safety of US citizens?
And the answer of course is "**** Donald Trump! You think he is going to get cooperation from us? **** him! Resist everything! **** Donald Trump and **** anyone that supports him!" Oh yeah...and "Love Trumps Hate!"
Click to expand...
LOL- that's a classic.
 
ocean515 said:
Now that you dug that up, could you post the part of these treaties where the signatories are required to open their doors to their enemies who are sworn to destroy them?
Click to expand...

.....mic drop...........
 
KLATTU said:
.....mic drop...........
Click to expand...

Ah. So I take it you agree such a provision is not present in these treaties?

While I am certainly no expert on the nuance and wording of these treaties, I would imagine they do carry an expectation the host country is obliged to insure the security of it's citizens, and as such, enact policy towards acceptance of refugees that echo's that prerogative.

If that is not the case, please leave the mic where it fell, and point me to the provisions that remove an allowance for that consideration.
 
zyzygy said:
Safe from gun crime and mass shootings? How will that be achieved?
Click to expand...

One step at a time.

You heard Trump on Chicago... and Rahma-Ding-Dong knows he's not joking... if he had doubts before.

Let's look at America's Demokrat ****holes in 4-years and see what progress they've made.

Lord knows, it's been decades of mismanagement for these cess pools to achieve their novel status.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom