Supreme court upholds Trump's travel ban

[bernie14]

Did this relate to the topic at hand? If so, could you explain how?

In two ways. First, the clinton executive provided the framework for trump's immigration policies. ..and second, the hypocrite holder, who now has the balls to say that he favors California as a sanctuary state, orchestrated the gunpoint removal of a little boy from his home "BECAUSE I SAY SO".....so, as I said...who needs a court order?

 

[Zkribbler]

... he favors California as a sanctuary state, orchestrated the gunpoint removal of a little boy from his home "BECAUSE I SAY SO".....so, as I said...who needs a court order?

Are you blathering about Elian Gonzalez?? There was indeed an order from a district court, affirmed by the court of appeal, awarding custody to the boy's one remaining parent. Clinton did not order in law enforcement; Janet Reno did. The maternal relatives claimed to have weapons and threatened to use them, while the house was encircled by hostile anti-government protestors. And you are shocked, shocked that law enforcement brought weapons?!

 

[Kyriakos]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...states-president-trumps-travel-ban/103134132/

A big win for Trump and Trump supporters. I think this is great! I don't see any reason why we should be letting potential terrorists into our country. Everyone can see what has happened in Europe over the last few years, it's just not worth the risk. In 2016 we dropped a whopping 26,172 bombs on these countries. That's bad enough on its own, but to then accept migrants en masse from these countries?? That just makes no sense at all. Of course they are going to attack us. I don't support the bombings, but you can't decide to bomb them and then also decide to let the people there migrate to your country. That is plain suicidal, you have to at least pick a side.

Ehm, don't you then think that it makes it even more jerkish to first bomb them and then label them as potential terrorists?... Talking about adding insult to injury!!!

 

[aelf]

If anything, it's a victory for Grimnir. And conservatives. They both want one thing: War.

 

[Kyriakos]

If anything, it's a victory for Grimnir. And conservatives. They both want one thing: War.

I agree, although sadly so do most of the dem politicians. See their stance re bombing Syria again.

 

[aelf]

The Dems will send a missile called Odin to kill thousands, maybe. The Right wants Ragnarok.

Moderator Action: Please stop issuing blanket statements about entire political hemispheres. It is useless at best and and goes rapidly downhill from there. ~ Arakhor
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[warpus]

The Supreme Court obviously saw enough evidence to uphold the travel ban.

Didn't they just rule that the ban they modified is not unconstitutional? It's not like their job is to rule on the perceived effectiveness of a law, right? Or is it?

 

[civver_764]

Are you willing to provide links that definitively provide evidence that Muslim travelers and migrants in the US are conducting terror attacks?

Just look at Europe, do you have any doubt that the same thing would happen to us if we let in similar numbers here? There's clearly a risk, so why should we take it? It's not like we need more people in this country. The only reason I can think of is to increase the number of Democrat voters.

Look at the immigrant crime rates in Europe. In Sweden for example, violence crime has significantly risen due to increased Muslim immigration.

These immigrants have vastly different cultural values than the western countries they migrate to. In Britain, for example, a poll showed that 40% of Muslims want Sharia law in some parts of Britain. We often talk about Western "Islamophobia", but what about the reverse? In Austria, for example, 66% believe the West wants to destroy Islam.

And around the world of course, Islamic terror is most the common form of terrorism. Knowing that, and knowing that these people are disproportionately likely to have anti-Western views, the danger seems clear.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

When looking at statistics, it is important to study context.

For one thing, Sweden tallies each incident as a separate case, even if the accusation, perpetrator and victim are the same, a practice that may create confusion on an international level. Crimes are also counted at the point of contact with police, not when convictions are made. This could make the level of crime appear higher than it is when viewing raw data without qualifying information. Brå researcher Johanna Olseryd told us:

In Sweden we count as many crimes as [the victim] can specify. So we’ve had cases with women who had a diary so they can say, ‘I’ve been raped within this marriage 400 times.’ That will result in 400 reported crimes. That also contributes to the difficulties in our statistics with comparing from month to month, or comparing one area to another, because a single case of that sort will turn the statistics upside down. That’s been a problem when some journalists from other countries go into our database. It could be one case with 50 reported crimes.

Also, Sweden has a broader definition of rape than some of its European neighbors. Until recently in Germany, for example, the victim having said no to a sexual act was not always enough to meet the legal definition of rape.

Kristine Eck, a researcher at Uppsala University, argued in a February 2017 Washington Post op-ed that because Sweden is particularly thorough in recording and publicly reporting crime, it may lead to the false impression that crime is higher there than elsewhere.

There is simply no data to show that Sweden is the rape capital of Europe, or even that rape is on the rise in the country.

 

[bernie14]

Are you blathering about Elian Gonzalez?? There was indeed an order from a district court, affirmed by the court of appeal, awarding custody to the boy's one remaining parent. Clinton did not order in law enforcement; Janet Reno did. The maternal relatives claimed to have weapons and threatened to use them, while the house was encircled by hostile anti-government protestors. And you are shocked, shocked that law enforcement brought weapons?!

Perhaps you should refresh your memory with facts before you allow your ideology to run your consciousness. ..

The hardening rhetoric and surge of behind-the-scenes activity came one day after a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, barred the authorities from removing the boy from the United States.

In blunt comments this evening that sounded like a prelude to action, President Clinton said the father should wait no longer for his son. .....Ms. Reno, who has been under heavy pressure to resolve the case, had reached a decision to end the impasse over the boy's custody....After meeting on Wednesday night with President Clinton aboard Air Force One, Ms. Reno broke off a trip to a Montana Indian tribe today and returned to her office where she conferred with aide.

[Ms. Reno] seemed to have misread the attitude of the appeals court, believing that the law was on her side, a view that was shaken when the court rejected the government's request to lift the emergency order barring immigration officials from allowing the boy to return to Cuba.

As for weapons in the crowd, the only one making those alligations was Fidel Castro

 

[Zelig]

There's no such thing as too much security.

The point of terrorism isn't to cause problems relating to a lack of security, it's to terrorize people.

 

[bernie14]

The Dems will send a missile called Odin to kill thousands, maybe. The Right wants Ragnarok.

and here i thought you were from Singapore when it seems you are actually a government sponsored north Korean ....besides odin don't play like that!!

Moderator Action: Quoted mod text removed. Never quote mod text at any point on this site. ~ Arakhor
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Berzerker]

The point of terrorism isn't to cause problems relating to a lack of security, it's to terrorize people.

people lacking security make easier targets

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Honestly, sometimes people just disgust me. "We bombed them, we can't accept them back now! We gotta pick a side!" The amount of mental gymnastics needed to come to this conclusion is baffling to me.

If you, say, kill a childs parents, destroy his hometown and belittle his culture, how the f are you not responsible for what happened? How is it not your duty to be responsible for the chaos you caused?

I'm not saying I am not part of this. Germany exported weapons to Saudi Arabia, Turkey.. Let's just say a decent amount went to ISIS fighters. There is zero doubt about that. But the exact same goes for America.

The wealth of my country is, at least partially, based on the suffering of innocent people abroad. I'd say the same goes for any country that ever had a colony. This is not about white guilt, or about being a ****, this is about being a man and accepting responsibility for something that all of us, atleast passively, have taken advantage of. Not accepting refugees (if your country contributed to the migrant crisis) is nothing but being a coward. A petty man.

There's no such thing as too much security.

Are.. Are you serious? Sometimes I read a post of yours and just shake my head for a few minutes.

Just entertain this notion: If you had a team of 50 security guards watching your every move, observing you while you horsehocky, piss, shower, have sex, kiss your children goodbye for school..

Security almost always comes at the cost of freedom. That's just how it works.

 

[Synobun]

Just look at Europe, do you have any doubt that the same thing would happen to us if we let in similar numbers here? There's clearly a risk, so why should we take it? It's not like we need more people in this country. The only reason I can think of is to increase the number of Democrat voters.

And around the world of course, Islamic terror is most the common form of terrorism. Knowing that, and knowing that these people are disproportionately likely to have anti-Western views, the danger seems clear.

Does it? I don't feel in danger from the Muslim population where I live. What makes my Muslim population less dangerous than your Muslim population, or the Muslim population visiting the US or trying to acquire citizenship in the US? Can you definitively tell everyone here that the Muslims visiting the US all want to spread terror? Can you even make the claim that it's likely that they want to spread terror on US soil?

Although I do have to say you've come up with an amazing conspiracy theory. Most terrorists are Muslim. We're accepting of Muslims. Therefore, we want terrorists to emigrate to the US because we want more Democrat voters. The logic is irrefutable.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The safest place on earth is a solitary confinement cell in a maximum security prison.

 

[metalhead]

Why aren't conservatives mad at SCOTUS for rewriting an executive order from the bench?

Contrary to simplistic headlines, the travel ban was not upheld. The Court unilaterally narrowed its scope in order to lift the preliminary injunctions issues staying it in toto. They aren't scheduled to actually hear the merits of it until the fall, at which point Tim is right, it will be moot as the ban will have expired by the time a ruling would issue.

 

[civver_764]

Honestly, sometimes people just disgust me. "We bombed them, we can't accept them back now! We gotta pick a side!" The amount of mental gymnastics needed to come to this conclusion is baffling to me.

If you, say, kill a childs parents, destroy his hometown and belittle his culture, how the f are you not responsible for what happened? How is it not your duty to be responsible for the chaos you caused?

I'm not saying I am not part of this. Germany exported weapons to Saudi Arabia, Turkey.. Let's just say a decent amount went to ISIS fighters. There is zero doubt about that. But the exact same goes for America.

The wealth of my country is, at least partially, based on the suffering of innocent people abroad. I'd say the same goes for any country that ever had a colony. This is not about white guilt, or about being a ****, this is about being a man and accepting responsibility for something that all of us, atleast passively, have taken advantage of. Not accepting refugees (if your country contributed to the migrant crisis) is nothing but being a coward. A petty man.

Ok, sure. Let's stop the bombings, reduce military spending, and use that money to help resettle refugees in the Middle East and other Muslim countries. They are much more culturally compatible there and will do much better. By bringing them into Western countries we are just asking for trouble. Whether or not their hatred of the West is justified, the fact remains that a lot of these people do hate us. They have vastly different ethical and cultural norms, and they are not interested in assimilation. They want to replace Western culture with their culture. This is a recipe for ethnic conflict.

You call me a coward, what about the gulf states? Why don't they accept refugees? What about East Asian countries? What about Israel for christ's sake, who have terrorized the Middle East for decades now? Why is it only Western countries that have this "duty" to accept people with a vastly different culture to their own into their countries? People who will disproportionately benefit from the welfare systems of these countries? People who are likely to harbor animosity towards these countries? It makes no sense to me.

Does it? I don't feel in danger from the Muslim population where I live. What makes my Muslim population less dangerous than your Muslim population, or the Muslim population visiting the US or trying to acquire citizenship in the US? Can you definitively tell everyone here that the Muslims visiting the US all want to spread terror? Can you even make the claim that it's likely that they want to spread terror on US soil?

I never said 'all' wanted to inflict terror, what a ridiculous strawman. As far as 'likely' goes, yes that is plainly true. As I said in the post you quoted, Islamic terrorism is by far the leading form of terrorism in the world. We have seen several Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe over the last few years, as well as increased crime rates. We also know that there is a lot of animosity towards the West in these populations. What justifies taking this risk?

Although I do have to say you've come up with an amazing conspiracy theory. Most terrorists are Muslim. We're accepting of Muslims. Therefore, we want terrorists to emigrate to the US because we want more Democrat voters. The logic is irrefutable.

On the contrary, if you think the fact that immigrants vote disproportionately for Democrats is not a factor in Democrat support for immigration you are naive. I'll ask again -- why should we accept these people into our countries? What good will it do for us?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

On the contrary, if you think the fact that immigrants vote disproportionately for Democrats is not a factor in Democrat support for immigration you are naive. I'll ask again -- why should we accept these people into our countries? What good will it do for us?

Well, if you are right and they vote disproportionately for Democrats...

Bring in enough of them and we won't have to suffer the consequences of Republican administrations. That sounds like a win to me. Imagine how much better off we would be without forty years of waiting for Reaganomics to trickle down. Or without puppet Bush starting wars for carpetbagger Cheney's profit.

 

[civver_764]

Thanks for proving my point, Tim. I hope you enjoy your Sharia Law free of Reaganomics