America is making a fool out of itself

[saxitoxin]

Great news, the President just shit-canned Attorney-General Sally Yates for insubordination, incompetence, and for sleeping with everyone in the Justice Department.

Dana Boente was sworn-in as the new Attorney-General at 9 p.m. at the White House and immediately confirmed his loyalty to the national reorganization: "I am honored to serve President Trump."

Trump had no problem sending Yates packing and she's just a garden snake, not a foreign viper. Justin Trudeau would be well-advised to keep that in mind before he shoots his mouth off again.

[patches70]

As is the POTUS prerogative. The AG serves at the pleasure of the POTUS. And man, Trump doesn't give a f*ck what Trudeau says.

[notyou2]

OK Patches, I accept your quote from US law concerning immigrants, but I have one question for you.

What about Cubans that land on US soil? Don't they instantly have a right to be there even though they are foreign nationals? Kind of shoots a large hole in your argument.

[saxitoxin]

As is the POTUS prerogative. The AG serves at the pleasure of the POTUS. And man, Trump doesn't give a f*ck what Trudeau says.

Trump's only mistake so far was to start signing E.O.s when Yates was still there trying to grab a last minute headline to leverage in negotiating her post-government partnership at Cravath, Swaine & Moore.

[patches70]

OK Patches, I accept your quote from US law concerning immigrants, but I have one question for you.

What about Cubans that land on US soil? Don't they instantly have a right to be there even though they are foreign nationals? Kind of shoots a large hole in your argument.

Not anymore! I'm glad you mentioned that. Obama, in one of his last acts before leaving office, got rid of that. Cuban Americans are pissed about it.

Hey, and guess what, it doesn't put a hole in my argument at all, the President can, and did, revoke and change the rules at anytime

[patches70]

As is the POTUS prerogative. The AG serves at the pleasure of the POTUS. And man, Trump doesn't give a f*ck what Trudeau says.

Trump's only mistake so far was to start signing E.O.s when Yates was still there trying to grab a last minute headline to leverage in negotiating her post-government partnership at Cravath, Swaine & Moore.

Oh, she's fucked about that. A little known, little reported thing Trump did this week. Any government official is banned from lobbying jobs for five years minimum after leaving office. For some offices it's a lifetime ban.

There is still some question on how to enforce such a ban, but Trump did what a whole hell of a lot of people wanted to see. Stop the revolving door of government-lobbyist industry that is fucking over regular joes.

[patches70]

I bet you didn't know that, did you notyou2, that Obama did away with that Cuban national rule of automatic citizenship if they land on US soil. On Jan 12, 2017 the wet feet dry feet policy was completely abandoned, so ordered by Obama. Cuban nationals landing on US soil now are to be sent back to Cuba. Unless of course they can secure permission to enter the US, which is also possible, but it's not automatic anymore.

[patches70]

Here is the order, notyou2-

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of ... ion-policy

Obama ordered this and there is zero question at all that he had the authority to do this. As I said, Cuban Americans are pissed off as hell at Obama over this. But you haven't heard a damn thing about it, have you?

I have a question for you-

How come you don't know about this?

[saxitoxin]

President Trump has now fired Dan Ragsdale as Director of Immigration. Thomas Homan, the former head of Removal Operations, was sworn-in as the new director 20 minutes ago.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/30/sta ... e-director

There's plenty more deadwood to chop off, he should go for the hat trick this evening.

[patches70]

I'm so glad ny2 brought up that Cuban thang. Congress passes an act the Cuban American lobby pushed for to allow Cubans automatic entry into the US if they make it and Obama says "Ok, that's done now. We aren't doing that anymore".

There is no Constitutionality talk about this because the President has the authority to do this. This is a great example of the broad power the POTUS has, even over Congress, in regards to immigration into the US.

Thanks for that notyou2. I have to say though, you really need to question how come Trump's use of this power is shouted from the rooftops but you didn't hear a single word about Obama's little move. You ignorantly thought you knew the deal but were somehow unaware of the change. Why?
Cuban Americans are raging. If you read some Floridian newspapers you'd know all about it.


It's these little nuances, this little things that Americans would know but those outside the US not so much. It's not notyou2's fault, the media he consumes is likely selective. Obama sending Cuban refugees back to Cuba doesn't play well in media with specific agendas where as those same media sources will certainly scream about Trump's use of the exact same powers Obama had and used the week before Trump took office.

Just as foreign nationals aren't so familiar with US law or how the US does things except through selective, biased and agenda ridden media. This is ok, nothing wrong with that, consume which ever media one wishes, just understand you may not (probably are not) getting the full story nor being made aware of the backstory, so to speak.

It is the nuances that are almost esoteric outside the cultures that the nuances exist that get misrepresented and distorted in other cultures and countries.
I'm sure American's views on Germany, France, Canada or where ever aren't as accurate as the native sons and daughters of said nation.
It's not a problem at all and it's kinda funny in most cases. When it's not funny is when certain ideologs drive nations to do violent acts without truly understand what the f*ck they are doing. The US and Iraq a great case in point. Few would argue that the US didn't have a clue about what the f*ck to do after taking out Sadaam. All our assumptions, all our understanding was completely wrong. This type of misunderstanding is certainly not funny. It's tragic. It's these very misunderstandings that have caused a shit ton of problems and people's "solution" is to double down on stupid.
Bringing democracy to Afghanistan. Pure stupidity.
Deciding the government to run Ukraine based on who the US wants Ukraine to align with, the EU or Russia. More stupidity.
Argue for and bring about self determination for the Palestinians and then get pissed when the Palestinians elect Hamas. More stupidity. That shit sure ain't working or making it better for the Palestinians or the Israelis.

This and more. Yet, people still say what we should be doing based on their emotional and limited understanding of the the areas, the causes of the crises, care for the consequences and a whole host of more problems.

Why people are getting so bent out of shape when a guy, Trump, says, "Hold on a second, we gotta think this through".
That's what this travel ban is. It's a way for the State to just stop for a second and try and think. Contemplate on what the right course of action is. Contrary to propaganda belief this is not a cut and dry course.
Frankly it's kind of a breath of fresh air for once the government pulling up the reigns and whoa that horse and just fucking think.
At least that's what I'm hoping the administration is doing.
Consider the war mongers, the neocons, the libtards and conservaturds who are always "we gotta do this or that now! Before it's too late!" This kind of shit gets us hip deep into a river of shit real fucking quick.

[thegreekdog]

Putting aside that what he's done is also unconstitutional (he's banning immigrants based on national origin and religion),

How is it unconstitutional?

You don't have a right to visit or enter another country. You have to get permission first, from that country. That's pretty much the standard as it's always been. Every nation has the right to determine who comes into their country. If you wanna go to Estonia on vacation and the Estonian authorities, for whatever reason, say "No, you can't enter the country", there isn't a fucking thing you or the US can do about that. Not one fucking thing, your ass just has to go on home.
The EU is a new exercise but just look at what is happening there. The European countries give up their right to determine who comes into their countries and the next thing you know you get the rise of nationalist parties. There is a connection.
People got conned, the EU was supposed to be an economic union, and then the EU technocrats are telling all the EU nations they have to accept whomever from where ever. This pisses people off who actually care about their country and culture and have legitimate concerns about those things being eroded too fast by too much immigration.
There is no doubt that immigration changes the face of a country, is there not? But that change is not always positive, contrary to what the multiculturalist yells at people to convince them otherwise. Unfetter immigration can destroy an entire nation and her people's culture. By telling people "we don't give a f*ck what you think because you are a <insert label here>" is not "winning the argument".

When people scream "Racists! Xenophobe!" they are not convincing anyone to their pov. Shouting down people who have legitimate concerns about immigration does not actually address those legitimate concerns. (Not saying you are doing that TGD). It simply alienates those who have legitimate concerns and they end up voting and giving power to a populist.

Trump's rise is not due to the right, it's due to the left who have flat out ignored, cajoled, shamed and otherwise yelled down any opposition no matter how legitimate. That doesn't convince people to adopt those views, it does quite the opposite.

The United States has in the past place travel bans from nations. They will do so in the future. All nations engage in this sort of stuff. Trump's ban isn't a muslim ban, it's a national ban. It is well within the rights of a nation to do so. It might not be wise, it might not be warranted, it might not even be moral or ethical, but it's business as usual in regards to the State.
Trumps ban is for 90 days with the purpose of developing better vetting systems of those coming into the US.
Obama issued a six month travel ban on Iraq, no one said a fucking word about that, did they? Obama did it for basically the same reason, because immigration officials didn't have the means to properly vet the incoming immigrants to ensure they weren't up to no good.

Under the US constitution there is absolutely no right for any non US citizen to gain entry into the United States. The President has vast power over immigration through established law. And I mean vast. Absolutely there are valid criticism over Trumps ban, but "unconstitutional" isn't one of them.
Obama had the same power, it's why no one could stop his "Dream Act", because the POTUS has very wide discretion on this issue.
The USCIS is part of the DHS and falls under the auspices of the executive branch. I would love for someone, anyone, to point to the part of the constitution that gives any non US citizen the right to enter the United States. Go ahead, point out the exact article or amendment pertaining to such. Remember, Trump's ban is a ban on nationals from a particular country, not religion. So you can go ahead and forget the "He's banning people based on religion" nonsense because the ban is based on citizenship status, something the United States and virtually every other country has done at one point or another through history.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 2982,d.amc

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... lates.html

Yes, yes, I know... Slate... but read it.

Also, I agree with this:

Trump's rise is not due to the right, it's due to the left who have flat out ignored, cajoled, shamed and otherwise yelled down any opposition no matter how legitimate. That doesn't convince people to adopt those views, it does quite the opposite.

Also, I agree with (apparently one is now required to say "I agree with" when responding to an actual fact) that this has been done in the past by other presidents including Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama.

Regardless, this is a despicable executive order. For what it's worth, I would have said that Carter's executive order was despicable (if I was alive) and would have said Obama's executive order was despicable (if anyone had bothered to report on it). I'm against the executive order but I have enough intelligence and humor to point fingers at the hypocritical and hysterical left. I mean, for fucks sake, they want to boycott Uber allegedly for not raising fares on NY airport fees AFTER THE TAXI STRIKE ENDED! The cynical part of me wonders if that has anything to do with the frustration of taxi driver unions...

[thegreekdog]

well, the good news is, the republicans are sane behind closed doors:

http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/audio ... 4586819853

nice to know they realize they promised the moon and know they can't deliver on healthcare. they did not
expect Trump to win. 7 years and they have nothing prepared... BA HA HA!!!-Jésus noir

This reporting confuses me since other news outlets have reported that there is, in fact, a replacement for the ACA.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/23/politics/ ... re-repeal/
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/31 ... eplacement

Perhaps MSNBC is confused between "not having a replacement" and "having more than one potential replacement." But if it fits their narrative, I guess it's news maybe. Separately, it boggles the mind that Fox gets critiqued so much yet a lot of new organizations try to emulate Fox's blatant bias, albeit for the Blue Team.

[thegreekdog]

However, the second chart especially is misleading. For example - it does not include people who are not Americans in the death toll. For example, British and Germans and French killed by terrorists originating from the "banned" countries in England, Germany, and France. It does not include Americans and anyone else killed by people from "banned" countries that we are ostensibly at war with (i.e. how many soldiers have been killed in "banned country X"?). If the ostensible purpose of the executive order is to keep Americans safe, we all need a better argument than the second chart. And I only point this out because I've seen it 100 times in the last three days.

Why are soldiers being added into the equation? As far as I can tell from a casual Google Syrians have killed one American soldier operating in Syria and a couple of hundred European civilians in European cities, while Iraqis have killed thousands of American soldiers in Iraq and no Europeans in their own cities. If you were to enact a blanket ban on people from one country to try and protect American civilians in America, Syria (hundreds killed) would make more sense than Iraq (thousands killed), because it's Syria that terrorists have been exported to NATO cities from.

I'm not saying, under the flawed logic that "you kill us, we ban you" that Iraq should not be included in the "ban" but it's weird to counter Trump's "We need to keep ourselves safe in the future" using facts that do not include, for example, non-US citizens or US soldiers or perhaps some indication that Syrian refugees are actually safe. I like to fall back on "it's unamerican and unconstitutional" (largely emotional arguments) and not the "Well, it hasn't happened on US soil by these particular nationalities in the past so it won't happen in the future even if we don't ban them" argument. Seems like a dumb reason not to do something. "I'm going to continue driving my car 100 miles per hour because I haven't gotten into an accident yet."

[thegreekdog]

Also patches...

This -

But once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders

The president's executive order bans those people (among others). Unless someone is manipulating the national media into a consistent, cohesive lie, and the executive order does not ban those people, at that point I retract my unconstitutional argument and rest entirely on my "it's not the American way" argument.

[thegreekdog]

OK Patches, I accept your quote from US law concerning immigrants, but I have one question for you.

What about Cubans that land on US soil? Don't they instantly have a right to be there even though they are foreign nationals? Kind of shoots a large hole in your argument.

Not anymore! I'm glad you mentioned that. Obama, in one of his last acts before leaving office, got rid of that. Cuban Americans are pissed about it.

Hey, and guess what, it doesn't put a hole in my argument at all, the President can, and did, revoke and change the rules at anytime

Assuming no one reads patches's post because TL, DR...

I'm surprised more protests did not erupt because of the rescindment... and by "surprised" I mean "not at all surprised" because "Obama" and because Cuban Americans tend to join the Red Team when they get here, not the Blue Team.

[patches70]

Also patches...

This -

But once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders

The president's executive order bans those people (among others). Unless someone is manipulating the national media into a consistent, cohesive lie, and the executive order does not ban those people, at that point I retract my unconstitutional argument and rest entirely on my "it's not the American way" argument.

Well, then, go ahead and retract your unconstitutional argument then. Those travelers who have green cards are not to be detained or bothered.
In the week since Trump issued the travel ban, over 800 refugees have indeed been granted entry into the US.

We are still letting people in, we are just closing the gates quite a bit. Those who have never been here, have no ties to the US ain't getting in until the order lifts in just under 90 days. Except Syria, that travel ban is indefinite with obvious reasons. So if you are from one of those countries and you planned on visiting the US on holiday, it ain't gonna happen now.

The seven countries issued the travel ban, three are official state sponsors of terror. Trump didn't label them official state sponsors, Somolia, Iran and Sudan have been on the official state sponsors of terror for a long time.
The other four, Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen are active war zones.

Anyone who thinks issuing a travel ban of nationals from official state sponsors of terror or from active war zones and thinks the ban is unconstitutional are sadly mistaken.

Also, TGD, I agree with what you quoted, I assume from the Slate article (sorry dude, I'm not going to read it, maybe you can give a summary? If they are making the case that Trump's travel ban is unconstitutional then I'm afraid I'm not going to agree since I'd rather look to the SCOTUS over the ideological biased Slate's word for it) that it is the left that gave rise to Trump.

That was part of my rant, when you got one side who ignores the other side and simply labels them racists this happens. Congrats leftists, you won the argument and the prize for winning the argument is losing elections. People who are concerned with issues like immigration, spending, welfare and plenty of others, have legitimate concerns. Since no one has addressed those concerns with anything other than "Racists! Xenophobe"! and every other manner of insult and disregard, Trump gets elected.


I know, I know, it really really sucks for those people who legitimately are trying to flee a horrible situation. Probably the best course of action is to end the conflicts that are driving the refugee crisis. War is bad enough, but war that drags on endlessly is even worse. The most ethical, moral and decent thing to do when waging a war is to do everything possible to end it quickly. The United States by arming and supporting the "moderate rebels" in Syria has caused that conflict to drag on far longer than it should have or would have. The cries of "Assad must go!" fuel this debacle. It does not matter to the security of the United States if Assad is in power. It never did, it never has. There are economic and corporate reasons that drives the "Assad must go!" calls from politicians and the useful idiots who parrot that line don't seem to know any better because they've bought the propaganda that Assad is some sort of cartoon evil villain. He's certainly not quite to the standard of western values, but that part of the world in general doesn't adhere to western standards anyway.

Virtually ever person would agree that the US in Iraq was a debacle. We kick out Saddam with zero plan on who takes over. We just assume that democracy takes over and it's happy ever after. The exact same thing is happening in Syria, except that Syria is a vital ally of Russia, which complicates things even more.
Five days ago, the "moderate rebels" in Syria (what a fucking misnomer BTW) received for the first time heavy vehicles. APC, armored transport, courtesy of the United fucking States. This equipment will be used by the likes of ISIS or groups just as bad as ISIS and yet we continue on this path which only leads to more death, more destruction and more refugees. ISIS ain't gonna be able to beat Russia. It is immoral and stupid to continue egging on a fight that can't be won. Unless someone wants to argue the United States enter the war proper and fight the Russians directly in Syria. Anyone in favor of that, go ahead and sound off in this thread and while you are at it, justify a war with Russia over who gets to be in charge of Syria. Explain how it is the United States right to decide this. And then, assuming that Assad is indeed removed, who is going to take over?

The most humanitarian thing to do IMO is to immediately end all US involvement in Syria completely. Get the CIA out, get the US special forces out. Stop arming the "rebels" who are nothing more than Islamic Jihadists of the worst kind, stop providing them with logistical help. ISIS will then be easy targets for the Russians, Assad who is far more secular than any rebel group in Syria could ever hope to be, will go ahead and consolidate his power and restore Syria back to the status quo after years or even decades of rebuilding. The Assad status quo BTW is fairly freedom of religion, free education for everyone. Political speech is limited, but considering what is happening now and what would happen when the "moderate rebels" take over, is an evil people can live with. At least they'll live. Assad is pretty mild so long as no one is threatening his power. Do that in Syria (pre war) and your ass disappeared. Now a days a whole hell of a lot of people are being disappeared because they don't worship the correct brand of Islam as dictated by people like ISIS.

[mrswdk]

However, the second chart especially is misleading. For example - it does not include people who are not Americans in the death toll. For example, British and Germans and French killed by terrorists originating from the "banned" countries in England, Germany, and France. It does not include Americans and anyone else killed by people from "banned" countries that we are ostensibly at war with (i.e. how many soldiers have been killed in "banned country X"?). If the ostensible purpose of the executive order is to keep Americans safe, we all need a better argument than the second chart. And I only point this out because I've seen it 100 times in the last three days.

Why are soldiers being added into the equation? As far as I can tell from a casual Google Syrians have killed one American soldier operating in Syria and a couple of hundred European civilians in European cities, while Iraqis have killed thousands of American soldiers in Iraq and no Europeans in their own cities. If you were to enact a blanket ban on people from one country to try and protect American civilians in America, Syria (hundreds killed) would make more sense than Iraq (thousands killed), because it's Syria that terrorists have been exported to NATO cities from.

I'm not saying, under the flawed logic that "you kill us, we ban you" that Iraq should not be included in the "ban" but it's weird to counter Trump's "We need to keep ourselves safe in the future" using facts that do not include, for example, non-US citizens or US soldiers or perhaps some indication that Syrian refugees are actually safe. I like to fall back on "it's unamerican and unconstitutional" (largely emotional arguments) and not the "Well, it hasn't happened on US soil by these particular nationalities in the past so it won't happen in the future even if we don't ban them" argument. Seems like a dumb reason not to do something. "I'm going to continue driving my car 100 miles per hour because I haven't gotten into an accident yet."

I thought the soldier thing was more like saying 'I'm not going to let my kids play outside because someone shot a raccoon yesterday'. It doesn't really matter if a hundred raccoons have been shot, that info wouldn't really help you determine the level of danger your kid would be in if it played outside.

I'd be open to some food-based analogies too, particularly if you have one relating to Peking roast duck.

[thegreekdog]

Also patches...

This -

But once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders

The president's executive order bans those people (among others). Unless someone is manipulating the national media into a consistent, cohesive lie, and the executive order does not ban those people, at that point I retract my unconstitutional argument and rest entirely on my "it's not the American way" argument.

Well, then, go ahead and retract your unconstitutional argument then. Those travelers who have green cards are not to be detained or bothered.
In the week since Trump issued the travel ban, over 800 refugees have indeed been granted entry into the US.

We are still letting people in, we are just closing the gates quite a bit. Those who have never been here, have no ties to the US ain't getting in until the order lifts in just under 90 days. Except Syria, that travel ban is indefinite with obvious reasons. So if you are from one of those countries and you planned on visiting the US on holiday, it ain't gonna happen now.

The seven countries issued the travel ban, three are official state sponsors of terror. Trump didn't label them official state sponsors, Somolia, Iran and Sudan have been on the official state sponsors of terror for a long time.
The other four, Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen are active war zones.

Anyone who thinks issuing a travel ban of nationals from official state sponsors of terror or from active war zones and thinks the ban is unconstitutional are sadly mistaken.

Also, TGD, I agree with what you quoted, I assume from the Slate article (sorry dude, I'm not going to read it, maybe you can give a summary? If they are making the case that Trump's travel ban is unconstitutional then I'm afraid I'm not going to agree since I'd rather look to the SCOTUS over the ideological biased Slate's word for it) that it is the left that gave rise to Trump.

That was part of my rant, when you got one side who ignores the other side and simply labels them racists this happens. Congrats leftists, you won the argument and the prize for winning the argument is losing elections. People who are concerned with issues like immigration, spending, welfare and plenty of others, have legitimate concerns. Since no one has addressed those concerns with anything other than "Racists! Xenophobe"! and every other manner of insult and disregard, Trump gets elected.


I know, I know, it really really sucks for those people who legitimately are trying to flee a horrible situation. Probably the best course of action is to end the conflicts that are driving the refugee crisis. War is bad enough, but war that drags on endlessly is even worse. The most ethical, moral and decent thing to do when waging a war is to do everything possible to end it quickly. The United States by arming and supporting the "moderate rebels" in Syria has caused that conflict to drag on far longer than it should have or would have. The cries of "Assad must go!" fuel this debacle. It does not matter to the security of the United States if Assad is in power. It never did, it never has. There are economic and corporate reasons that drives the "Assad must go!" calls from politicians and the useful idiots who parrot that line don't seem to know any better because they've bought the propaganda that Assad is some sort of cartoon evil villain. He's certainly not quite to the standard of western values, but that part of the world in general doesn't adhere to western standards anyway.

Virtually ever person would agree that the US in Iraq was a debacle. We kick out Saddam with zero plan on who takes over. We just assume that democracy takes over and it's happy ever after. The exact same thing is happening in Syria, except that Syria is a vital ally of Russia, which complicates things even more.
Five days ago, the "moderate rebels" in Syria (what a fucking misnomer BTW) received for the first time heavy vehicles. APC, armored transport, courtesy of the United fucking States. This equipment will be used by the likes of ISIS or groups just as bad as ISIS and yet we continue on this path which only leads to more death, more destruction and more refugees. ISIS ain't gonna be able to beat Russia. It is immoral and stupid to continue egging on a fight that can't be won. Unless someone wants to argue the United States enter the war proper and fight the Russians directly in Syria. Anyone in favor of that, go ahead and sound off in this thread and while you are at it, justify a war with Russia over who gets to be in charge of Syria. Explain how it is the United States right to decide this. And then, assuming that Assad is indeed removed, who is going to take over?

The most humanitarian thing to do IMO is to immediately end all US involvement in Syria completely. Get the CIA out, get the US special forces out. Stop arming the "rebels" who are nothing more than Islamic Jihadists of the worst kind, stop providing them with logistical help. ISIS will then be easy targets for the Russians, Assad who is far more secular than any rebel group in Syria could ever hope to be, will go ahead and consolidate his power and restore Syria back to the status quo after years or even decades of rebuilding. The Assad status quo BTW is fairly freedom of religion, free education for everyone. Political speech is limited, but considering what is happening now and what would happen when the "moderate rebels" take over, is an evil people can live with. At least they'll live. Assad is pretty mild so long as no one is threatening his power. Do that in Syria (pre war) and your ass disappeared. Now a days a whole hell of a lot of people are being disappeared because they don't worship the correct brand of Islam as dictated by people like ISIS.

So... many... words...

(1) Unconstitutionality

Based upon what I've read (e.g. CNN, WSJ), it appears that the United States is indeed not permitting lawful residents to return to the country. If this is the case, then the executive order is unconstitutional. If this is not the case, then presumably the executive order is constitutional (at least for now).

(2) American-ness

As I've indicated before, any ban on refugees is inherently unamerican (or is it Unamerican or unAmerican?). Our country was created (slash evolved) such that we were the place people went to escape things like war and terrorism and extreme poverty. This executive order (and any other, similar executive order before that, whether banning Iraqis or Iranians) is unamerican.

(3) Facts

I know people on the Red Team and Blue Team like to use guilt and labels ("you're racist"), danger ("terrorists!"), and other stupid arguments ("Trump/Obama said it, must be bad!") and this seems to be the new status quo, but I would most assuredly like to see well-reasoned research and well-reasoned argument than the nonsense I've seen the past few days from both sides.

And yeah, we need to figure out how to help people in other countries without getting involved with weapons and warfare (assuming we want to help at all). I feel like a lot of this stems from the "isolationism bad because World War One and World War Two" mentality of our foreign policy thinkers; alternatively (or additionally) it's cronyism of some kind ("you need to buy these plans..." "we need to buy these planes... let's start a war") and less about national interest (unless we think making more planes is in our national interest). What ever happened to letting other countries decide their own fates (sovereignty)? I suppose that went out of style during the Spanish-American War (colonialism comes to the former colony) or the Cold War (Castro bad... Ho Chi Minh bad...).

[thegreekdog]

However, the second chart especially is misleading. For example - it does not include people who are not Americans in the death toll. For example, British and Germans and French killed by terrorists originating from the "banned" countries in England, Germany, and France. It does not include Americans and anyone else killed by people from "banned" countries that we are ostensibly at war with (i.e. how many soldiers have been killed in "banned country X"?). If the ostensible purpose of the executive order is to keep Americans safe, we all need a better argument than the second chart. And I only point this out because I've seen it 100 times in the last three days.

Why are soldiers being added into the equation? As far as I can tell from a casual Google Syrians have killed one American soldier operating in Syria and a couple of hundred European civilians in European cities, while Iraqis have killed thousands of American soldiers in Iraq and no Europeans in their own cities. If you were to enact a blanket ban on people from one country to try and protect American civilians in America, Syria (hundreds killed) would make more sense than Iraq (thousands killed), because it's Syria that terrorists have been exported to NATO cities from.

I'm not saying, under the flawed logic that "you kill us, we ban you" that Iraq should not be included in the "ban" but it's weird to counter Trump's "We need to keep ourselves safe in the future" using facts that do not include, for example, non-US citizens or US soldiers or perhaps some indication that Syrian refugees are actually safe. I like to fall back on "it's unamerican and unconstitutional" (largely emotional arguments) and not the "Well, it hasn't happened on US soil by these particular nationalities in the past so it won't happen in the future even if we don't ban them" argument. Seems like a dumb reason not to do something. "I'm going to continue driving my car 100 miles per hour because I haven't gotten into an accident yet."

I thought the soldier thing was more like saying 'I'm not going to let my kids play outside because someone shot a raccoon yesterday'. It doesn't really matter if a hundred raccoons have been shot, that info wouldn't really help you determine the level of danger your kid would be in if it played outside.

I'd be open to some food-based analogies too, particularly if you have one relating to Peking roast duck.

It's like "I've never ordered Peking roast duck at Madame Cho's Famous Chinese Food and I've never gotten sick from it, but if you eat the Peking roast duck at Madame Cho's Famous Chinese Food, you'll get sick. So instead of going there, let's have them deliver, then we won't get sick."

[patches70]

So... many... words...

Sorry man, I'll keep this short.

(1) Unconstitutionality

Based upon what I've read (e.g. CNN, WSJ), it appears that the United States is indeed not permitting lawful residents to return to the country. If this is the case, then the executive order is unconstitutional. If this is not the case, then presumably the executive order is constitutional (at least for now).

Yes, in the early hours of the order being put into effect green card and legal immigrants were being stopped. That was remedied quickly because if you have a green card then you've demonstrated a relationship with the US and the Bill of Rights become involved. As of this moment not a single person is being detained in any airport or port of entry anywhere in regards to this.

Trump's order was kind of a surprise and Trump being the impulsive person he is didn't provide the proper guidance. TBH Trump himself probably didn't understand, he only heard "I got the power to do this?" without understanding the basic nuances that come with the order. He can't stop green card holders or people who already hold visas. He can however deny giving out any more visas or travel permissions.

(2) American-ness

As I've indicated before, any ban on refugees is inherently unamerican (or is it Unamerican or unAmerican?). Our country was created (slash evolved) such that we were the place people went to escape things like war and terrorism and extreme poverty. This executive order (and any other, similar executive order before that, whether banning Iraqis or Iranians) is unamerican.

]

Unamericanness. Do I really have to point out the subjective nature of that to you? You state later that you want to see well reasoned arguments that don't rely on emotion or vague slogans that means something different to from one person to the next.
And sure, the US has always been the place people went to escape war and poverty, but there has always been limits of varying degrees on that hasn't there?
This is just another temporary limit.

(3) Facts

I know people on the Red Team and Blue Team like to use guilt and labels ("you're racist"), danger ("terrorists!"), and other stupid arguments ("Trump/Obama said it, must be bad!") and this seems to be the new status quo, but I would most assuredly like to see well-reasoned research and well-reasoned argument than the nonsense I've seen the past few days from both sides.

I've provided plenty of SCOTUS information that you can look up yourself clearly showing that the POTUS has this power and the constitutionality of such power.

I will tell you a secret TGD. Read it if you want, or don't, but this is the best explanation you'll get about what's going on that is about as unbaised as possible-

show

[Symmetry]

TLDR version, Patches thinks that Trump is some kind of super-genius when it comes to dealing with people.

[saxitoxin]

Trump has now moved on to punishing Merkel for her insolence.

Merkel waves her hands in the air and says "Germany can't control the euro!" - meanwhile, Trump apparently can control the euro as he caused it to surge 0.5% today just by having Peter Navarro tweet that it was undervalued. How many units of North America sales did Mercedes and BMW just lose in a span of 8 hours all because Merkel was not properly deferential to the President last week?

I can hardly wait to see what kind-of punishment Trump has cooked-up for Hollande. Trump has the power to decide who the next president of France is if he decides to crash the French economy in March.

[patches70]

TLDR version, Patches thinks that Trump is some kind of super-genius when it comes to dealing with people.

I wouldn't say super genius, but he clearly has a skill set you fail to understand. That's ok, cupcake. If ignorance is bliss you are indeed a happy fellow. I can think of worse ways for one to experience life.

[patches70]

Trump has now moved on to punishing Merkel for her insolence.

Merkel waves her hands in the air and says "Germany can't control the euro!" - meanwhile, Trump apparently can control the euro as he caused it to surge 0.5% today just by having Peter Navarro tweet that it was undervalued. How many units of North America sales did Mercedes and BMW just lose in a span of 8 hours all because Merkel was not properly deferential to the President last week?

I can hardly wait to see what kind-of punishment Trump has cooked-up for Hollande. Trump has the power to decide who the next president of France is if he decides to crash the French economy in March.

Har, have you heard the chatter from the EU technocrats who are now saying that the US is an "existential threat" to the EU on par with Russia and China. Hahahah! Watch out Europeans! Trump's coming to strangle your babies while you sleep and poison your wells!