President Trump

[Zarathustra]

I would classify the immigration changes recently implemented as a disaster. A move designed to apply more vetting to incoming people under the guise of "protecting the country from terrorism" failed to apply to anyone coming from Saudi Arabia, the country of origin of all but two of the original 9-11 attackers.

So the problem with it is that it doesn't apply to enough countries? Or that it doesn't sufficiently take into account out-of-date strategies? I don't get this criticism. Attackers aren't coming from Saudi Arabia. That hasn't been true for 16 years. They are now coming from other countries. The current policy reflects current reality.

Meanwhile, just this morning Trump signed a new 2-for-1 regulation executive order--for every new regulation put in place, two must be repealed or allowed to expire.

I wasn't a fan of Obama's philosophy "I have a pen and a phone", resulting in his attempts to govern the country via executive order. Trump is now doing the same damn thing, issuing decrees as if he were a monarch. He needs to step it back a couple of notches.

Trump is using his pen for the opposite effect. Rather than making up law with the explicit intention of going around Congress, Trump is using his pen to end Obama's executive overreach and to enforce current law.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

The current policy is ass-backwards. You don't try to stop terrorists from coming in to the country at airports--by the time they are at the arrival gate they it may be too late. I thought we were supposed to be pro-active in the War on Terror, take the fight to where our stated enemy originates? Shouldn't people be vetted at the departure gates of airports in other countries? Besides, if I were a terrorist I wouldn't try to sneak in at La Guardia; instead, I would hop an international flight into Ezeiza down in Buenos Aires, from there hop a flight to Benito Juarez in Mexico City, take a bus to Monterrey, then pay some guy a couple hundred U. S. dollars to drive me to Nueva Ciudad Guerrero, where I can rent a boat and sneak across Falcon Lake in the middle of the night. Failing that, book passage in a cabin on a freighter--many freight ships have two or three cabins for rent--to Vera Cruz and then take the bus to Monterrey.

No, this travel ban was just plain stupid, no matter how thinly you slice it.

On the one hand, I understand the tactic of using executive overreach to end executive overreach. On the other hand, if the wildfire is threatening to burn down your house you don't set your own house on fire to spite the wildfire. What happens when one of his hastily-drafted executive orders falls victim to the Law of Unintended Consequences?

The terrorists won last weekend. They shut down airports without even having to do anything!

[Zarathustra]

More people were inconvenienced by the protesters than the ban. From what I understand, people were detained at our airports because the ban was put into place suddenly, without warning, so that the terrorists wouldn't use the advanced notice to flood into our country. A few people who fall into the ban were already in flight when it was enforced.

It's only for 90 days. Obama enacted a similar ban in 2011 for 6 months. There were no protests then. The outrage is manufactured.

[Cail]

Come on Zar, don't be like the Obama-bots. You know this is a lousy policy, and no amount of polishing this turd will change that. A week in and Trump's batting .500 at best.

[Zarathustra]

How do I know this is a bad policy? We've argued this point before. It's not a Muslim ban. There are Christians in the countries affected by this ban. And there are 46 Muslim majority countries which are not affected by this ban. It's a ban specific to terrorist-prone countries, a list of countries drawn up by Obama's own admin.

Accepting the media's narrative would be like the Obama-bots. Accepting that just because people throw a tantrum they're right, would be like the Obama-bots. I'm thinking for myself. I've supported this from the beginning. I do not accept that people in foreign countries have an absolute right to enter ours. I think we have the right to pick and choose whom to allow into our country, and I think we should focus on people who love our country and want to make it greater, not people from places where they hate us and want to destroy us. This should be common sense, if rationality were common.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

It's only for 90 days. Obama enacted a similar ban in 2011 for 6 months. There were no protests then. The outrage is manufactured.

Here we agree. The protests over this ban are like the anti-war protesters who mysteriously disappeared on 21 January 2009--100% politically motivated.

[Cail]

How do I know this is a bad policy?

Because you're not stupid.

We've argued this point before. It's not a Muslim ban. There are Christians in the countries affected by this ban. And there are 46 Muslim majority countries which are not affected by this ban. It's a ban specific to terrorist-prone countries, a list of countries drawn up by Obama's own admin.

No, it's not a Muslim ban, only a partisan fool reads it that way.

But it's ineffectual. Terrorists kill Americans in three ways:

- They come here and kill us.
- They convince people already here to kill us.
- They kill us when we go there.

The travel ban addresses the first point. Now when was the last time a terrorist came here and killed us? I'll wait for you to try to find one.

[Zarathustra]

We've argued this point before. It's not a Muslim ban. There are Christians in the countries affected by this ban. And there are 46 Muslim majority countries which are not affected by this ban. It's a ban specific to terrorist-prone countries, a list of countries drawn up by Obama's own admin.

No, it's not a Muslim ban, only a partisan fool reads it that way.

For instance, Obama? He's already criticizing Trump, saying that it's wrong to discriminate on the basis of religion. This propaganda is being pushed hard by the Left, even the disgraceful conduct of a previous president criticizing the current (by making shit up).

But it's ineffectual.

Let's assume this is true. So what? Are we really this upset (as a country) about the ineffectual nature of this ban? If there were not corresponding assumptions that this is bad/evil/un-American, then who would care? Government ineffectualness is par for the course; it seldom stirs people to talk about it, much less protest.

Terrorists kill Americans in three ways:

- They come here and kill us.
- They convince people already here to kill us.
- They kill us when we go there.

The travel ban addresses the first point. Now when was the last time a terrorist came here and killed us? I'll wait for you to try to find one.

All the recent terrorist attacks on American soil were by either immigrants or children of immigrants. Ohio State, San Bernardino. Orlando. Boston. And there have been failed terrorist attacks from people traveling from these countries, such as the underwear bomber.

People here won't like the source, but here's a list of 10 terrorists who used our immigration policy to sneak into the U.S.

And there is ample evidence of open borders policy in Europe, terrorist attack after attack done by immigrants.

I know we tend to forget once these fall out of the headlines, but surely you remember.

[Cail]

We've argued this point before. It's not a Muslim ban. There are Christians in the countries affected by this ban. And there are 46 Muslim majority countries which are not affected by this ban. It's a ban specific to terrorist-prone countries, a list of countries drawn up by Obama's own admin.

No, it's not a Muslim ban, only a partisan fool reads it that way.

For instance, Obama? He's already criticizing Trump, saying that it's wrong to discriminate on the basis of religion. This propaganda is being pushed hard by the Left, even the disgraceful conduct of a previous president criticizing the current (by making shit up).

No argument. The sore losers are being sore losers and making shit up. No surprise, really.

But it's ineffectual.

Let's assume this is true. So what? Are we really this upset (as a country) about the ineffectual nature of this ban? If there were not corresponding assumptions that this is bad/evil/un-American, then who would care? Government ineffectualness is par for the course; it seldom stirs people to talk about it, much less protest.

See above. Trump's going to be criticized no matter what he does, so why bother with something that won't work and has terrible optics?

Terrorists kill Americans in three ways:

- They come here and kill us.
- They convince people already here to kill us.
- They kill us when we go there.

The travel ban addresses the first point. Now when was the last time a terrorist came here and killed us? I'll wait for you to try to find one.

All the recent terrorist attacks on American soil were by either immigrants or children of immigrants. Ohio State, San Bernardino. Orlando. Boston. And there have been failed terrorist attacks from people traveling from these countries, such as the underwear bomber.

Every last one of them was an American citizen. So again, who exactly would this ban have stopped?

People here won't like the source, but here's a list of 10 terrorists who used our immigration policy to sneak into the U.S.

....and did nothing. Sorry man, you're going to need to do better than that.

And there is ample evidence of open borders policy in Europe, terrorist attack after attack done by immigrants.

Thank God we don't live in Europe or have open borders.

[Zarathustra]

Our border is pretty damn open ... or it was prior to Trump. This is *preventative.* Yes, thank God we're not Europe, and Trump's action will help insure that this doesn't happen. The fact that none of those terrorist immigrants succeeded is irrelevant. Stopping them over there is better than stopping them here. The fact that we can stop some here doesn't mean we always will. The fact that we allowed some terrorists to become U.S. citizens is part of the problem, not a point in your favor. We need a better vetting process. Trump is suspending travel from these countries temporarily while we have time to work on that.

"Bad optics" is no longer an issue. The majority of people don't care, and indeed revel in Trump's ability to dismiss that as a concern whatsoever. Worrying about optics is weakness. It's the only power the Left has, and he renders it powerless.

[Cail]

It's obvious that you don't understand our border. It's far from "open", and is airtight compared to the border and refugee policies in Europe.

And it actually does matter that we haven't had a single terrorist attack from anyone from those countries. "Preventative" sounds nice, but it's bullshit. It's playing on people's fears to appear as though something is being done. It's security theater that does more harm than good.

The terrorist attacks you mentioned were committed by American citizens, not by foreigners sneaking over the border. Trump's EO does nothing to prevent more terrorist attacks.

[Zarathustra]

Here's what I understand about our border: millions of people have simply walked across and entered our country illegally. You might have heard about them. ( ) So an "air-tight" border that has somehow let millions of people through must have a sizeable hole somewhere ... let's plug that up before we call it air-tight.

Anyway, it doesn't matter for this debate whether or not we've stopped the terrorist plots from immigrants/refugees. We can't forever count on infallibility of our plot detection. It's a fact that terrorists have tried to infiltrate our refugee programs. Thus, before we let anymore in, we should enhance our vetting process (which is what Trump is doing ... it's a only a 90 day "ban").

It doesn't matter if those people were citizens--they or their parents obviously weren't vetted properly prior to letting them become citizens! The Orlando shooter's Taliban supporting dad should never have been let into the country. The San Bernardino shooter husband should never have been able to bring in his terrorist wife. Pointing out that they made it as far as citizenship only shows how poor our vetting is, it certainly doesn't make your case.

[Cail]

So you've shifted the goalposts from refugees to illegal immigration. Nice. And you did it while ignoring what I typed. You sure you're not from Boston?

So let me guide you away from that distraction back to the topic at hand. The vetting process. Here it is. If you'd rather not read something from the Obama White House, try this.

You're arguing for a police state in which anyone who doesn't meet whatever strict criteria you have for being American enough is under suspicion. You're suggesting that the 4th Amendment shouldn't apply to American citizens if they....something or other, because Omar Mateen was born in New York in 1986, and his father had been here for a few years at that point. So what, pray tell, would you have done differently about that?

[Hashi Lebwohl]

We haven't had a foreign terror attack since 2009 but we have had a handful of domestic terror attacks. The days of organized cells are gone, though, since most of the foreign actors (and some of the domestic ones) are radicalized lone wolves.

I disagree, Cail--our border with Mexico is extremely porous. There are places where people can simply walk across unimpeded but my favorite weak spot, the one I mention often, is Falcon Lake--get a makeshift rowboat, cross at night, and you have an easy way in.

[Cail]

I disagree, Cail--our border with Mexico is extremely porous. There are places where people can simply walk across unimpeded but my favorite weak spot, the one I mention often, is Falcon Lake--get a makeshift rowboat, cross at night, and you have an easy way in.

No, we're in complete agreement. What I said was, It's far from "open", and is airtight compared to the border and refugee policies in Europe.

See, not at all that our border was airtight. Please don't fall down the same Trumphole that Zar did.

[Zarathustra]

Cail, who mentioned anything about a police state? Temporarily suspending refugees from a few countries in no way affects American citizens.

I'm honestly not trying to shift the goalposts. Immigration and refugees are in the same ballpark. Whatever way people are coming in, it's too damn easy. How do we know there's not enough vetting? Because terrorists keep slipping through.

Your links give the appearance of extensive vetting, but our intelligence agencies have admitted that there's no way we can vet people who have no records. If their fingerprints don't appear in FBI databases, what does it matter that we're fingerprinting them a couple times?

Why do these people need to be here? That's the question. Why are we risking it? Instead of proving that they're not terrorists, I think the bar should be set a lot higher at whether they can actually benefit our society. Who cares if we "unfairly" disallow some non-terrorists into this country? They don't have a right to be here, and I'm tired of people acting like their rights have been violated if we err on the side of caution before allowing them to wander our streets.

[Cail]

Cail, who mentioned anything about a police state? Temporarily suspending refugees from a few countries in no way affects American citizens.

You are. You've mentioned all these terror attacks, and every last one was pulled off by a US citizen. Your response? "It doesn't matter if those people were citizens". Yeah, it actually does.

I'm honestly not trying to shift the goalposts. Immigration and refugees are in the same ballpark. Whatever way people are coming in, it's too damn easy. How do we know there's not enough vetting? Because terrorists keep slipping through.

And they always will. But so far, we haven't had an issue with people coming here and blowing shit up. So yeah, what we're doing is actually working really well.

Your links give the appearance of extensive vetting, but our intelligence agencies have admitted that there's no way we can vet people who have no records. If their fingerprints don't appear in FBI databases, what does it matter that we're fingerprinting them a couple times?

That's a fair point, but it's not all that important. The fact is that the vetting is as good as it's going to get, and calls for increasing vetting are basically majoring in the minors. The process is already convoluted and long (up to 2 years), so what more would you suggest?

Why do these people need to be here? That's the question. Why are we risking it?

This is also a fair question. And the answer is, "because we're fucking Americans, and we're the bestest, baddest motherfuckers on the planet, and we give a shit about the other people in the world who weren't so goddamn lucky to be born here."

Instead of proving that they're not terrorists, I think the bar should be set a lot higher at whether they can actually benefit our society. Who cares if we "unfairly" disallow some non-terrorists into this country? They don't have a right to be here, and I'm tired of people acting like their rights have been violated if we err on the side of caution before allowing them to wander our streets.

I'm on record as being all for overhauling our immigration system. I think that the criteria for entry should be more stringent, and that the process should take less time.

[Zarathustra]

Cail, who mentioned anything about a police state? Temporarily suspending refugees from a few countries in no way affects American citizens.

You are. You've mentioned all these terror attacks, and every last one was pulled off by a US citizen. Your response? "It doesn't matter if those people were citizens". Yeah, it actually does.

I still don't see how that implies a police state. In terms of this particular debate, it doesn't matter if they were granted citizenship, because I'm not saying we should violate citizens' rights--this "ban" doesn't apply to citizens--I'm saying that perhaps we need better vetting of who we allow into our country, including those that later become citizens. You don't need a police state to do that.

What would I add to our current vetting to make it stronger? Well, perhaps an inquiry into whether the refugee or immigrant comes from a terrorist-prone region! And if they do, then don't let them in! That would certainly strengthen the vetting process.

I would also screen people based on Islamacist ideology (distinct from Islam itself). If they hold the political belief that Islam should conquer Western civilization, then they have no business within Western civilization. I might even go farther into social views (dressed up as religion) such as whether they think it's okay to subjugate women and gays. Sure, people are free to hold these beliefs, but they can hold them in the desert. We don't need more intolerance in this country. We have enough of that already. There is nothing noble about letting assholes into our land.

Just because it takes a long time to vet refugees doesn't mean it's done well. It also takes a long time for TSA to search people at the airport, and they fail the vast majority of the time.

[rdhopeca]

What would I add to our current vetting to make it stronger? Well, perhaps an inquiry into whether the refugee or immigrant comes from a terrorist-prone region! And if they do, then don't let them in! That would certainly strengthen the vetting process.

I'd love to know what you think the refugees are running from. If they weren't living in dangerous, perhaps war-torn or terrorist regions, they wouldn't be refugees. That's pretty much a guarantee that the actions of the people destroying their country is the reason they aren't allowed in, which is just ridiculous. This is a solution looking for a problem.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

No, we're in complete agreement. What I said was, It's far from "open", and is airtight compared to the border and refugee policies in Europe.

See, not at all that our border was airtight. Please don't fall down the same Trumphole that Zar did.

Not falling down the Trumphole, clearly, but I did misread your comments so I definitely own that "what the hell were you thinking, Hashi?".