http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-38788116
How many Americans have been killed by Scottish-Iranian vets?
It is a temporary ban first of all.
Secondly, it is not just about security. It is also about welfare.
I'm not a proponent of welfare but if you must have it, then you cannot possibly combine that with unrestricted immigration because the logical outcome of that is a population full of immigrants on welfare voting themselves more welfare. Is that how America was built? No. It was built by hard working intelligent people to a country that is the envy of many today.
Secondly, riddle me this; do more immigrants vote for the party that promises more government welfare or less government welfare? I don't even know where you're going with this.
Finally, no one believes that resources aren't finite and as such it isn't a zero-sum game more than I do. However, when you have speak of how the wealthy/corporations should pay more taxes and those taxes should go to fund more welfare...clearly that's a mindset that says things are scarce and that it is a zero-sum game. One party says expropriate from producers to fund welfare the other says reduce regulation and taxes to incentivise more production. One has a producer mindset, the other has a consumer mindset.
– Segej Brin's parents were also immigrants
– Most immigrants don't vote at all, because immigration does not imply citizenship
- (this argument intentionally left blank to make dang's life easier)
– Most naturalised citizen vote democratic, yes. Jews also voted for Hillary (74%:26% according to https://www.algemeiner.com/2016/11/14/examining-the-jewish-v...). So did Harvard grads. Are those two groups also lazy "people with a consumer mindset"?
Doesn't that mean something to you? It is no wonder many democrats want even more immigrants. Look at a state such as California...
27% of California's population was foreign born, about twice the US percentage.
Don't you think these politicians are aware of this and it is undoubtedly the reason they want even more immigrants? It has nothing to do with caring for other humans for them. It is all about increasing the number of democrats as much as possible irregardless of whether it is good for the country or not. Don't let them take you for a ride.
>Steve Jobs was the son of Syrian immigrants
These occurrences will be there from time to time but look at how and when these immigrants came to America.
There was a time when it was much harder to come to America and that meant that only the best people went to America. Not just everyone and anyone. The DV lottery program was the beginning of the end for the right kind of immigration to America.
When I look at the caliber of people that actually made it to America from my country before this was introduced, man, they were smart, hardworking and any country losing them to America felt the pinch. Now, the DV program has been sending just about anyone regardless of whether they were adding value to America. It is an indicator that it is on longer understood that even though immigration is good, it is only as good as the caliber of people you let in.
Who should be let in you ask? Those seeking education, expatriates, entrepreneurs, scientists etc. Not everyone.
The diversity visa lottery program requires that you have a high school diploma and come from a country that has sent very small numbers of people to America. And the DV lottery includes only 50,000 winners. Are you aware of how large America's population is, and how small 50,000 people is relative to the U.S. and to the size of normal annual immigration?
Yes, the point of the diversity visa is to add diversity to the immigrant pool, so that it isn't totally dominated by Asia and Latin America, because the U.S. has had historical success with diversity.
That is not the point. I'm simply stating that lately America has been less strict with the caliber of immigrants allowed in and the DV program best exemplifies it.
Similarly, war refugees from the 1970s through the 1980s were not particularly high "caliber", and certainly not self-sufficient enough to survive without hundreds of millions in American government aid, nevermind the generosity of American families and churches in providing sponsorship.
Again, you're not from America, so maybe it's hard to understand that America is lucky enough to have the resources and geographical placement so that immigration can be a net benefit rather than a zero-sum drag on society. You seem to think that there is no regulation of immigration at all, when in fact, it has been the subject of several laws that specify the annual composition and allowance, and these are things based on the study of history and economic realities. And also, observations that American families are happier when they've been reunited, which is why family-based visas are a large part of the annual allocation [0]
[0] https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/immigrate/family/f...
She lives and works in Scotland. She was on vacation in Costa Rica. Her plane flies from Costa Rica to Scotland, with a change in the US.
It is also an edge case that can be overlooked because there are other routes to get to her desired destination.
She is an Iranian. You and I don't know her. We cannot speak to her credibility. We cannot even speak to the credibility of an actual American who goes to Iran and comes back after a spending some time there let alone hers. How can you know whether she is radicalized unless you're absolutely careful about who comes into your country? These things are happening and cannot be sugarcoated or denied any longer. Something must be done and I for one am glad that Trump is setting such a great example for all other countries.
If you want Trump to "be an example for other countries", how should the woman ever get to Costa Rica, considering Costa Rica <-> Iran is probably not popular enough to warrant a direct flight?
How exactly is a woman that is not allowed to exit the terminal, and has been through three metal detectors a risk to America?
Considering there has been no single incident with any terrorists from the nations in the last 30 years (yeah, I just spoiled the answer for the first question, sorry), would I be expecting too much when asking why nobody thought to pick up the phone and ask immigrations "If I were to ban people from country X, is there anything I should keep in mind". After all, it took DHS less than 6 hours to identify ambiguities with regards to green cards and visas.
Please tell me we're not ignoring that most terrorism is Muslim affiliated. That, coupled with the fact that there have been many attacks all over the world by Muslim terrorists leads me to ask a simple question, does it then not make sense to ban people from largely Muslim countries until more can be done to thwart these attacks?
Should nothing be done according to you?
As for that woman, that is an edge case and it can be tolerated for now until travelers on transit can be isolated more carefully in the future. For now, the ban must be employed because more important things are at stake here i.e. security.
>How exactly is a woman that is not allowed to exit the terminal
>If you want Trump to "be an example for other countries", how should the woman ever get to Costa Rica, considering Costa Rica <-> Iran is probably not popular enough to warrant a direct flight?
I would suggest that they be stopped before coming to America in the first place. Let them use another route until authorities can figure out what the hell is going on. America is after all high on extremists' target priority lists.
Don't use this small instance of this woman to discredit the entire ban on these 7 nations' emigrants.
Not sure if you're aware of this but America has a Department of Homeland Security as well as USCIS, both funded to the tune of billions of dollars to provide screening of the immigration process. There is a lot more than "nothing" that has been done to regulate immigration before Trump's executive order.
Do you want America to be like France where because of insufficient immigration controls they get an attack every so often from these Islamic immigrants?
I mean, to equate America with France, as if geography and economics had nothing to do with immigration, makes me think that you come in with flawed assumptions about how the world works.
Surely that's a low blow or as Watson might phrase it, a wang bang and you know it.
I already said I'm not an American. I do however support Trump. I read many of his books right out of high school and I'm re-reading The Art of the deal.
I see a global shift to the right wing going forward. I mean can you believe that in France the Socialist party stands no chance because even the French, yes the French cannot stand what the left has done.
I'm glad people from all races have woken up and are saying no to unrestricted immigration, no to excessive taxes and regulation, no to welfare states, and no to egalitarianism. Luckily, this transcends racism. It is about reason as Ayn Rand would put it.
You said,
> Clearly whatever is being done is insufficient and that's why there are attacks by Islamists.
If, as the parent is hinting, there have been few-to-no attacks by immigrant Islamists (and few attacks by Islamists of any stripe) in the US, I don't see how it's remotely clear that "whatever is being done is insufficient". What the hell does "sufficient" look like?
> Do you want America to be like France where because of insufficient immigration controls they get an attack every so often from these Islamic immigrants?
Personally? Maybe. If the cost of getting rid of it was zero, then no, of course not. But I choose to bear much higher risks because I don't like the trade-offs necessary to eliminate them. There is no reason this should be different.
Exactly what President Trump has done. Impose a ban until it can be figured out, what the hell is going on.
Okay, I'm with you. A lot of Trump's behavior during the campaign and leading up to the inauguration can be interpreted in this way as well.
from the real crimes,
It's been (just over) a week since the inauguration. I'm sure I could have missed something. The only thing I can think of right now is the emoluments-related matters, and other conflicts of interest. The Executive Order stuff is pretty nasty as well, and looks to be the beginning of a judicial (and perhaps congressional) fight, arguably a crime, but that remains to be seen.
which are stealing the entire US economy out from under us.
Okay, now I'm not following at all. What am I missing? I plead naiveté and ignorance and throw myself at the mercy of the court.
How so?
The only stealing going on is that targeted at the wealthy. High taxes and innumerable regulations are an atrocity. Inflation is even more atrocious.
However, here's what Keynesian economics proponents never get; even though you try to rob the rich by currency devaluation, you end up doing quite the opposite and that is actually hurt the poor who are the worst affected by inflation all while saying that in the end, we're all dead anyway.
I don't think it's fair to describe the current situation as indiscriminate. There are existing limits. One can reasonably argue whether they're appropriate or adequate or effective, but to imply that there are no limits or vetting at all is disingenuous.
Even if that isn't the case, can you honestly say we live in times where we can ignore that more needs to be done? To me, it is absolutely binary; either you think more should be done or you don't.
The real debate here is whether Trump's ban constitutes doing what's necessary and I say yes.
All around are accusations of "they're not listening to us", "they don't really understand the problem", "they don't realize the logical conclusion of their positions". A lot of people are barely talking at each other, much less actually with each other.
I can — and do — honestly say we live in times where we need to spend a lot more effort in listening and understanding each other, as people, as opposed to partisans.