Kateri89 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 I just read through the text of the executive order in it's entirety and wondered what people's opinions were? You can read the full text here: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/text-of-trump-executive-order-nation-ban-refugees/ On the one hand, the indefinite ban on Syrian refugees entering the US seems very unChristian but on the other hand, if in fact there is a genuine concern for US National Security, is it justified in order to protect the American people? The 90 day ban on immigrants and non-immigrants alike from the "countries of concern" also seems both unChristian and yet prudent. After reading through the executive order, there are other things in there that people aren't mentioning. For instance, there are certain countries who are more restrictive of allowing non-immigrant Americans in and the order basically says that the US will impose equal restrictions on non-immigrants from those particular countries. I guess I just want to hear other Catholic opinions on this. Scripture tells us how we are to treat aliens in our land "Blessed are those who are persecuted" - Matthew 5:10-11 and "I was a stranger and you welcomed me" - Matthew 25:31-46. There are more obviously but those are just two examples. However, do we not have an obligation to try to protect the citizens of our own nation? Is it a greater sin to refuse to take in refugees or to allow people in on the basis of tolerance and acceptance even at the risk of endangering US citizens? I have no idea what position to take with this issue. Also worth noting that the countries of concern include Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia. I know that the US has considered Saudi Arabia its ally but considering the oppression within the country itself, not to mention its significant ties to 9/11, should that country be included on the list? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bardegaulois Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Well, let me start by asking you this: how is limiting or even temporarily banning travel from certain countries for the sake of national security un-Christian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, bardegaulois said: Well, let me start by asking you this: how is limiting or even temporarily banning travel from certain countries for the sake of national security un-Christian? Horrifying situations like this: https://twitter.com/ABC7News/status/825558139202318336 And this: http://aleteia.org/blogs/deacon-greg-kandra/report-christians-blocked-from-entering-the-u-s-sent-back-to-syria/?ru=31274c1dd0b3e3c08686c0b863611051 There is no justification for things like this. It is unnecessary cruelty, tearing families apart, and potentially causing peoples' deaths for no discernible reason other than just banning immigration from countries that sound the worst. There can be justified reasons to block immigration. But the US literally has one of the most extensive vetting programs on the planet that takes up to two years to complete. This is unjustified cruelty to appease the roaring plebs, and nothing more. Edited January 31, 2017 by PhuturePriest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 here is the thing, if you actually look up the vetting process in place before the ban you will see people are extremely vetted already. Some of those refugee's spend years waiting to get into the united states. Its not like there was not extremely good vetting of these people in place already. this is completely for show. 9 minutes ago, bardegaulois said: Well, let me start by asking you this: how is limiting or even temporarily banning travel from certain countries for the sake of national security un-Christian? what is un-christian is making an indefinete ban on refugees from a certain country. Just because you live in Syria does not mean you should automatically be banned from the united states forever. not every single person in Syria is trying to do us harm. that is an extreme generalization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kateri89 Posted January 31, 2017 Author Share Posted January 31, 2017 1 hour ago, bardegaulois said: Well, let me start by asking you this: how is limiting or even temporarily banning travel from certain countries for the sake of national security un-Christian? Well from a Christian perspective, any human being is our brother or sister in Christ. The boundaries and limits of countries are man-made. Should I value the lives of Americans more than the lives of Syrians? It seems to me that we shouldn't ban people trying to flee a country where the bloodshed and destruction are rampant. I confess that I know absolutely nothing about the pre-existing vetting process for immigrants so I'll defer to those who are more well versed in it. The only concern I have is the "lone wolf" attacks that end up being linked to the Islamic State. They've happened on a larger scale in Europe than in the US but even so, they have still occurred here. Although, the recent mass shooting at Pulse Nightclub was committed by a man of Afghani descent and Afghanistan is not on the list of countries of concern. I guess I'm just worried because there is no way to know when someone is going to attack people in the name of Islam. My best friend of 15 years is Muslim and is proof enough to me that there are kind, peaceful Muslims who are no more guilty of the sins of other Muslims than Catholics are guilty for the sins of the priests involved in sex abuse scandals. Still, I think this executive order pacifies some of my fears even though I hate to admit it. At the end of the day though, I would rather take the risk if it means saving the lives of all of those Muslim refugees (and all other refugees) who are fleeing the very terrorists we fear as well. I don't know, I'm just going to continue to pray for clarity in this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 (edited) Vetting is really nearly impossible, how can one vet a Syrian refugee when Syria has been bombed out of modern civilization? What are they suppose to do pulled a file from the rubble of a destroyed building?! I think anyone who says that refugees have been extremely vetted before now are misguided, or perhaps even lying to the public. And as you can read below government officials don't believe it's possible to vet many of the refugees. Now I've done a lot of work digging up old news articles before the Media's current insane flip out over Trump's EO temporarily pausing immigration from some high risk terrorists infested nations. I have doubts that I've used my time for a purpose as this will likely just become a Right vs. Left debate. But I believe anyone who can read or remember what has been reported about terrorist infiltration of refugees groups and camps as well as the many crimes that go on in the camps may not be so quick to follow the lead of an hysterical, overtly bias and conventionally forgetful media. Quote Terrorism Suspects Are Posing as Refugees, Germany Says By ALISON SMALEFEB. 5, 2016, NEW YORK TIMES Selected quotes from article... "An Algerian couple, suspected of planning a terrorist attack in Berlin and arrested on suspicion of belonging to the Islamic State, entered Germany late last year and applied for asylum as Syrian refugees — part of a pattern of terrorism suspects entering Europe under the guise of fleeing war, the German authorities said Friday." "On Friday, the head of Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, Hans-Georg Maassen, said the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, was using the wave of newcomers to infiltrate Europe. The authorities in Europe have “seen repeatedly that terrorists are being smuggled in, camouflaged as refugees,” Mr. Maassen said on ZDF public television. “That is a fact that security authorities must always seek to recognize and identify.” Quote Tracing the path of four terrorists sent to Europe by the Islamic State By Anthony Faiola and Souad Mekhennet April 22, 2016 WASHINGTON POST Selected quotes from the article... "On a crisp morning last October, 198 migrants arrived on the Greek island of Leros, all of them seemingly desperate people seeking sanctuary in Europe. But hiding among them were four men with a very different agenda. The four were posing as war-weary Syrians — all carrying doctored passports with false identities. And they were on a deadly mission for the Islamic State. Two of the four would masquerade as migrants all the way to Paris. There, at 9:20 p.m. on Nov. 13, they would detonate suicide vests near the Stade de France sports complex, fulfilling their part in the worst attack on French soil since World War II." "European security officials say they think that the Islamic State has seeded terrorist cells on the continent over the past year and was able to do so in part because the European Union failed to come to grips with a migrant crisis that opened a funnel for the militant group." “We have sent many operatives to Europe with the refugees,” an Islamic State commander said in an interview over an encrypted data service. “Some of our brothers have fulfilled their mission, but others are still waiting to be activated.” Quote NATO commander says ISIS spreading like cancer among Syrian refugees By L. Todd Wood - - Wednesday, March 2, 2016 WASHINGTON TIMES Selected quotes from the article... "Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO Allied Command Operations, General Philip Breedlove, says ISIS is using the Syrian refugee crisis to ‘mask the movement’ of terrorists infiltrating Europe and the United States. While testifying to the Senate armed services community, the four star general said the Islamic State was ‘spreading like cancer’ amongst the flow of migrants from the Middle East. The group’s members are “taking advantage of paths of least resistance, threatening European nations and our own” "General Breedlove’s statements appear to support Donald Trump’s position. Intelligence professionals have stated that the ability to vet Syrian refugees, where there is no controlling legal authority to identify these refugees, is an impossible task" Quote 17 ISIS Militants Posed as Refugees to Reach Europe: German Official by Andy Eckardt - Jul 4 2016, 9:05 am - NBC NEWS Selected quotes from the article... "At least 17 ISIS militants have arrived in Europe concealed as refugees, according to Germany's domestic intelligence service." "Maassen said that ISIS was trying to "send a political, not an operational signal" by capitalizing on the migrant crisis. "It wanted to show ... that it is capable of smuggling terrorists to Europe concealed as refugees and that every refugee can be a terrorist," the intellgence chief added. His agency's annual security report published last week notes that Europe is faced with "a new dimension of [Islamist] terror," stating that "it has to be assumed that ISIS is planning further attacks in Europe, including Germany." Quote Refugees in Europe say they fear terrorists are among them by Gilgamesh Nabeel and Jabeen Bhatti, USA TODAY Selected quotes from the article... "“They were strong supporters of the Nusra Front,” said the Iraqi refugee, referring to the al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group fighting in the Syrian conflict. “I was praying five times a day, to hide my beliefs from them. They did not force me to, but I did not feel secure.” Ali, 21, is an atheist and said his lack of religion was one reason he fled Iraq. He worried that if his bunkmates knew, they would consider him an apostate and beat him up — or worse. It's a common story in Europe these days. Many refugees have detailed experiences similar to Ali’s, encountering extremists among the estimated 1 million migrants who made the journey into Europe from the Middle East last year." "“I see many extremists,” said Bader Khaishah, 28, a Syrian refugee at a Munich refugee camp. “I cannot be certain, but they have strong tendencies (toward militancy). I can feel this from the extremist tunes on their mobile phones, their injuries and their reaction when discussing the incidents in our region.”" "Jamal Jabur, 32, an Iraqi refugee in Esslingen, Germany, said he met three men who claimed they previously fought for the Islamic State. Two of the men, from Ramadi, Iraq, were forced into the militant group, he said. But a third, from the Iraqi city of Mosul, believed in the Islamic State’s cause and often chastised anyone who didn’t follow the group’s harsh interpretation of Islam. “The man from Mosul is a dangerous person,” Jabur said. “Once, the man from Ramadi and I talked with a German woman, and the Mosul member said this is wrong, and that prophet Mohammed disapproves.” Jabur said he never met anyone affiliated with the Islamic State, also known is ISIS or ISIL, when he lived in Baghdad from 2003 until 2015. "Within a few days in the refugees' camp in Germany, I met three former ISIS members," he said, shaking his head. “There are lots of them. Many are escaping the service with ISIS, but they seem to be dangerous. I felt afraid to tell the camp administration about them.”" Quote German intelligence warns of ISIL ‘hit squads’ among refugees By Joshua Posaner 8/11/16, 12:43 PM Politico EU Selected quotes from the article... "German intelligence services have evidence that “hit squads” from the Islamic State terror group have infiltrated the country disguised as refugees, the deputy head of Bavaria’s spy agency told the BBC Thursday. “We have to accept that we have hit squads and sleeper cells in Germany,” Manfred Hauser, the vice president of the Bavaria region’s intelligence gathering agency, BayLfV, told the Today program. “We have substantial reports that among the refugees there are hit squads. There are hundreds of these reports, some from refugees themselves. We are still following up on these, and we haven’t investigated all of them fully,” said Hauser." "Hauser said intelligence services have “irrefutable evidence that there is an IS command structure in place,” making a coordinated attack, similar to those seen in Paris last November and Brussels in March, “likely.”" Quote German police arrest three Syrian men ‘sent to Europe by Isis to carry out terror attacks’ as part of Paris attacks network by Lizzie Dearden UK INDEPENDENT Selected quotes from article... "German police have arrested three Syrian men suspected of being deployed by Isis to carry out new terror attacks in Europe. Prosecutors said the three suspects were dispatched to Germany last year “either to carry out a mission that they had been informed about or to wait for further instructions”." "Investigators said the 17-year-old suspect had been trained to use guns and handle explosives in Isis’ de-facto capital of Raqqa before crossing into Europe on the refugee route from Turkey to Greece. The trio, carrying false passports, left Syria in October 2015 – around the same time as at least two of the Paris suicide bombers who crossed to the island of Leros. They reached Germany in November and have received four-figure payments in US dollars from Isis, as well as mobile phones with pre-installed communication apps." "Several terror suspects posing as Syrian refugees have been arrested in German counter-terror operations so far this year, although no convictions have been announced. Harry Sarfo, a former Isis recruit, told The Independent he was approached by commanders looking for militants to carry out attacks in the UK and Germany while living in Raqqa last year. He said he declined and later fled the group, but there are fears it has continued to exploit the refugee route to send back trained jihadists. Europol estimates that up to 5,000 Europeans may have undergone training at terror camps abroad and the agency’s director has warned the continent faces its “biggest terror threat in more than a decade” from returning fighters." Quote ISIS lure Syrian refugees to join terror group in massive recruitment drive across Europe BY TOM WELLS 2nd December 2016, 7:00 pm THE SUN UK Selected quotes from article... "A Europol report said Germany had recorded 300 attempts by jihadis to recruit refugees entering the EU by April this year alone. It warned: “A real and imminent danger is the possibility of elements of the (Sunni Muslim) Syrian refugee diaspora becoming vulnerable to radicalisation once in Europe and being specifically targeted by Islamic extremist recruiters. “It is believed that a number of jihadists are travelling through Europe for that purpose." "And it warned IS had a “full stock of stolen blank Syrian passports” ready to be forged to get their fighters into the EU." Quote Disguised as refugees and able to cross borders without being identified: ISIS general who blew up a hostage with a rocket and decapitated another prisoner is 'back in Europe with 400 soldiers' after fleeing Syria By Julian Robinson 08:08 EST, 29 December 2016 UK DAILY MAIL "An ISIS general once pictured decapitating a prisoner is back in Europe with up to 400 of his most trusted soldiers after fleeing the war zone in Syria, it has been claimed. Ex-NATO soldier Lavdrim Muhaxheri and his men are among thousands who have fled after ISIS suffered devastating losses in war-torn Syria, according to sources in the Italian intelligence services. Many of the fighters are feared to have disguised themselves as refugees in order to cross borders to get into Europe without being identified, according to information leaked from the spying agency." Quote The U.S. Bars Christian, Not Muslim, Refugees From Syria By Elliott Abrams On 9/13/16 at 12:40 AM, NEWSWEEK Selected quotes from article... "The United States has accepted 10,801 Syrian refugees, of whom 56 are Christian. Not 56 percent; 56 total, out of 10,801. That is to say, one-half of 1 percent." "Experts say another reason for the lack of Christians in the makeup of the refugees is the makeup of the camps. Christians in the main United Nations refugee camp in Jordan are subject to persecution, they say, and so flee the camps, meaning they are not included in the refugees referred to the U.S. by the U.N. “The Christians don’t reside in those camps because it is too dangerous,” Shea said. “They are preyed upon by other residents from the Sunni community, and there is infiltration by ISIS and criminal gangs.” “They are raped, abducted into slavery and they are abducted for ransom. It is extremely dangerous; there is not a single Christian in the Jordanian camps for Syrian refugees,” Edited January 31, 2017 by KnightofChrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bardegaulois Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 2 hours ago, PhuturePriest said: There can be justified reasons to block immigration. So there can. Thank you. That's all I was asking. Trump's blanket ban has quickly been modified by Preibus and by the courts. It's an emergency measure that will evolve as situations change, as legal challenges arise, and as particular cases warrant. This came in too hastily, and many aren't quite sure what they're doing yet. I certainly hope for an official modification of this order within a few days, as it's sorely needed. Nonetheless, we have here an initial, even if poorly planned and implemented, demonstration from the new administration that it recognizes the possibility of grave threats to national security posed by the anarchy in failing states - as if the news from Germany isn't enough already to call the powers that be to keep a very vigilant eye upon this. We're likely to see a clarification of this order within a week's time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 (edited) Seems to me we can be more invested in looking after ourselves and our own ba**s*d*s, than in loving and caring for our neighbour and at our own risk if necessary (and to find out who is our neighbour and all about risk, read the Parable of The Good Samaritan") I am an Australian and we are in a glass house in preaching to others what they should do. Our own immigration policy is a complete disgrace and we have not come very far at all from The White Australia Policy in attitudes rife in our communities including bigotry and racism on a violent level. I admire our Australian boxer, Anthony Mundine (aboriginal), who is refusing to stand for the Australian Anthem at his next big boxing match. One of the lines in our anthem runs "we are young and we are free". As Anthony said in an interview "many of us are not young and we are certainly not free." I don't think I will be standing at the Australian anthem in future either. As faithful, loyal Catholic Christians, we are commanded to take up our cross daily "and come, follow Me". And in the following quotation, we can learn what our Final Judgement will be based upon, rather than these crazies and nutcases running around with all sorts of biased and ridiculous memes and doomsday quotations stating the false prophet is upon us. Warning! Warning! The Darlegs are here! Perhaps false prophets are indeed already in our midst and Jesus has told us this will happen Quote 9 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves.By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? . Some of us, I am convinced, are in for a major shock at Judgement when they quote to God, in praise of themselves, all the Rules and Regulations they have faithfully advocated, praised and by which they have abided.......reminds me of the Parable of Pharisee and The Tax Collector (Luke Chapter 18) and who went home in God's favour and who did not....and why........ Quote Mathew Chapter 25 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PVY.HTM He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.' Then the righteous 16 will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?' And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.' Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.' 4Then they will answer and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?' He will answer them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.' 46 And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." If we do not have Peace in our world, only violence and war, destruction, crime and murder,hatred and fear etc..........we only have ourselves to blame as Catholics. Mea maxima culpa Edited January 31, 2017 by BarbaraTherese Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 (edited) On 1/31/2017 at 6:59 AM, BarbaraTherese said: Seems to me we can be more rather than these crazies and nutcases running around with all sorts of biased and ridiculous memes and doomsday quotations stating the false prophet is upon us. Warning! Warning! The Darlegs are here! Content deleted And we are to be aware of the times we are in. Revelation 1:3 ► Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near. And who did you help out over Christmas? I don't tell everyone when I help people but since you're calling me out here's some pictures of the people I helped over Christmas. Donated for a cow but it died so they got goats and food instead. Also bought a talented Catholic a new computer because his had broke and he couldn't afford a new one. He uses it for his music ministry and makes great music. Edited February 2, 2017 by Guest Personal attack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatitude Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Refugees always flee from unstable and dangerous places. If those places weren't unstable and dangerous, they wouldn't be running away. So if you say that banning refugees is a logical and just solution because the chaos in their home countries makes it too difficult to vet them then you might as well say that you want no refugees at all, and sadly I think this is what some people honestly believe. Vetting is possible, and I say this as someone who has worked in the humanitarian sector, including in places that are coloured red on official maps for 'we advise against all travel'. Risk assessment is something that's an important part of most humanitarian work, and for refugee resettlement it's a rigorous multi-level process. This year I will be working in Algeria. Is there a risk that refugee communities may be infiltrated by violent individuals? Yes (and this question is brought up in every single situation of political violence by people who don't want refugees around, and who would much prefer to listen to tabloid newspapers with a known agenda than the far less sensationalist analyses conducted by professionals with qualifications in the field - it's not new). But it is a microscopic risk compared to the near-certain death that people face in their home countries, and even if the risk were real, we wouldn't be excused from our responsibility as Christians. I'd be more afraid of being shot by the USA than killed by a refugee or an immigrant in Germany, because the statistical likelihood of that is considerably higher. It would seem that people over here are broadly supportive of that view - I don't know how many Phatmassers follow the international news (I was surprised to see that not even the national protests in airports are getting much mention on here) but thousands of people in European countries have been hitting the streets in solidarity with refugees in protest against Trump's ban and to make their own commitment to refugee welfare heard loud and clear. This was London last night; Whitehall, a major street in the political district, was completely shut down as over ten thousand people came to demonstrate. There were also protests of thousands in Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Glasgow and all other major cities, with even my parents' town managing to find four hundred people to protest at half a day's notice. Similar things are happening all over the Continent. I find it a bit baffling when I encounter Americans online who seem to fervently believe that Europe is some hotbed of danger and that we are all in terror of refugees, based on the Daily Mail (possibly people on Phatmass who quote it uncritically don't know that its owner was a supporter of fascism - one of its 1930s headlines was 'Hurrah for the Blackshirts' - and that its line on refugees hasn't changed since, not to mention the amount of fire it has come under for the publication of shall we say 'creative' stories on the issue). I was visiting my parents last night, and when I saw what was going on, I went out with a hastily made sign, inspired by Bl. Charles de Foucauld - a saint who has always encouraged me to strive to recognise Christ in each and every person and to take risks for love. I was very happy that my sign attracted attention from people in attendance and the press, because I was able to evangelise a bit and talk about Bl. Charles and his belief that "we have no right to be silent watchdogs or sleeping watchmen...it is Jesus in this situation." I even had chance to tell someone about the Real Presence, when she was wondering how to keep hope alive when you're tired out by witnessing pain. I can't recognise the Gospel in banning the vulnerable. Occasionally people ask if I would still have my same views if I got violently assaulted when was out in the refugee camps of Lebanon, or kidnapped and tortured as I was travelling on Algerian roads that technically require a military escort because the Al-Qaeda threat is so high. I tell them that I hope not, but that hasn't happened to me yet and I'll cross that bridge when I get to it - what's important is that I do the right thing today. In the meantime I've met hundreds of refugees, perhaps thousands, and I'm still alive to say how very grateful I am to them for the way in which they have strengthened my faith in Jesus, who once had to flee like them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 11 hours ago, PhuturePriest said: Horrifying situations like this: https://twitter.com/ABC7News/status/825558139202318336 And this: http://aleteia.org/blogs/deacon-greg-kandra/report-christians-blocked-from-entering-the-u-s-sent-back-to-syria/?ru=31274c1dd0b3e3c08686c0b863611051 There is no justification for things like this. It is unnecessary cruelty, tearing families apart, and potentially causing peoples' deaths for no discernible reason other than just banning immigration from countries that sound the worst. There can be justified reasons to block immigration. But the US literally has one of the most extensive vetting programs on the planet that takes up to two years to complete. This is unjustified cruelty to appease the roaring plebs, and nothing more. Phuture, I personally know a couple of people that do security vetting for the government and are involved in counter terrorism. The US does not do a great job at it, especially with the Middle East. It takes so long, not because it is so thorough, but because it is slow, clunky, and crappy. Its amazing any are approved and let through. You're listening to Dems and mainstream media hype. Chuck Schumer, who tells you abortion is women's health care, cried about the temporary halt and review of immigration vetting, when in 2015, he suggested the same thing. Countries do have a right to review who comes over their border, and we do have a responsibility to help the oppressed. We have to figure out how to do it sanely, humanely, and with imperfect human abilities. The seven countries in the list were not chosen because they are Muslim. The 7 were designated by the intelligence agencies under Bush and Obama as being particularly troublesome with terrorist organizations infiltrating citizen and refugee groups. Other Muslim countries were not on the list. It is NOT a Muslim ban. You're being told that because it's about making political points against Trump and Republicans, and has nothing to do with real concern for refugees. If they were really concerned about refugees, then why didn't resources get allocated to immigration vetting to provide reassurance to American public and allow more immigrants. Both sides have left this to a security vs humane battle only to score points for and against each other purely for political gain. The public outcry is just a tool to manipulate as fools for marketed messages that sell car and soap ads. We do have the right and need for security. We do have the right and need to regulate who and how many immigrants we allow. We do have the responsibility to bring in as many NEEDY refugees as we can, within the context of our citizens rights and needs. I am not anti-immigration. My wife came here on a green card. One of my sisters married into an Iraqi family. I have plenty of family members that are non citizens, naturalized citizens, refugees, first generation US born, immigrant, and have English is a second language. I support a review of Federal policy and programs for immigration just like Chuck Schumer called for in 2015 and Trump demanded in 2017. I want something the US citizens can get behind and support. We need to sponsor and support immigrants. It saddens me that sanity in this issue is abandoned for political partisanship. This time, it's the Dems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 I may be the only Phatmasser who faved deportation as a suspected terrorist. I didn't object to having more finger prints taken by the FBI and the RCMP. I didn't mind the additional background checks by them plus CSIS. I did mind that my mother in law had instigated the whole thing out of spite. I never once faulted the government of Canada for being careful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatitude Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 6 hours ago, Anomaly said: The seven countries in the list were not chosen because they are Muslim. The 7 were designated by the intelligence agencies under Bush and Obama as being particularly troublesome with terrorist organizations infiltrating citizen and refugee groups. Other Muslim countries were not on the list. It is NOT a Muslim ban. You're being told that because it's about making political points against Trump and Republicans, and has nothing to do with real concern for refugees. Trump stated on the campaign trail that if he won the election, he would ban Muslims from entering the US, and after he announced that with all his customary braggadocio, I don't think it's possible to suggest that the executive order he rushed through within days of taking office has nothing to do with Muslims and is based instead on pragmatic assessment rather than a desire to appeal to populist sentiment. The said order was filled with so many legal holes that the Attorney General could not order to Department of Justice to defend because she found it unlawful and inconsistent with the responsibilities of the judiciary, leading to a statement accusing her of "betraying the people" (a pretty chilling phrase to use against a person who is meant to ensure the administration is held accountable to the law) and her removal from post, something that hasn't been seen since Nixon. It's difficult for me to see how something so monumental was just the result of partisan sniping when her nomination was confirmed with broad bipartisan support and that Trump's executive order has also drawn extensive criticism and concern from Republicans and precipitated worldwide protest involving people all over the political map. Yesterday there was an emergency meeting in the UK's House of Commons in which a unanimous cross-party vote was passed to pressure the Trump administration to repeal the ban. There were MPs voting 'aye' who do favour tough immigration policies, and the idea that politicians from left to right are only objecting to Trump's particular policy because they've "been told" to by a partisan media seems a lot less likely than there is actually something wrong here. It feels as if people are trying to gloss over the ugliest aspects and implications of this whole thing by packaging it as just policy like any other. Catherine, I respect you and the work you do, but when you compare yourself to someone coming from seven countries that are affected by severe political violence, famine, economic precariousness, and the attendant medical crises caused by war-devastated infrastructure, I get exasperated - you weren't in danger of being deported to anything like those situations, and being singled out for unfair checks as a result of malicious reporting while you remained in your home with your husband is rather different to being subject to a blanket ban that means you're suddenly on one side of airport Customs and your family is on the other, you're being told you can't meet a lawyer, and for all you know you're about to be slung onto a plane to your last port of embarkation. The initial ban on those green card holders was lifted in response to public pressure of the sort that people here are dismissing as just partisan hype, and I agree with PhuturePriest that the whole unworkable and cruel thing was deliberately rushed through within days to appeal to a certain streak of populist sentiment. If the Trump admin wanted serious immigration policy they would have spent time drafting one, rather than plunging headlong into a situation in which the government's own attorneys couldn't give an answer to certain key questions during the hearing in which the stay was imposed, as they didn't even have the right information to represent what they were supposed to be representing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 I never said that I would have faced being killed or tortured had I been deported. I would have been homeless for a few weeks at worse. I said I never faulted the government of Canada for requesting the additional checks. It's my understanding that additional vetting is what his executive order is requesting, not wholesale deportations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 20 hours ago, beatitude said: Trump stated on the campaign trail that if he won the election, he would ban Muslims from entering the US, and after he announced that with all his customary braggadocio, I don't think it's possible to suggest that the executive order he rushed through within days of taking office has nothing to do with Muslims and is based instead on pragmatic assessment rather than a desire to appeal to populist sentiment. The said order was filled with so many legal holes that the Attorney General could not order to Department of Justice to defend because she found it unlawful and inconsistent with the responsibilities of the judiciary, leading to a statement accusing her of "betraying the people" (a pretty chilling phrase to use against a person who is meant to ensure the administration is held accountable to the law) and her removal from post, something that hasn't been seen since Nixon. It's difficult for me to see how something so monumental was just the result of partisan sniping when her nomination was confirmed with broad bipartisan support and that Trump's executive order has also drawn extensive criticism and concern from Republicans and precipitated worldwide protest involving people all over the political map. Yesterday there was an emergency meeting in the UK's House of Commons in which a unanimous cross-party vote was passed to pressure the Trump administration to repeal the ban. There were MPs voting 'aye' who do favour tough immigration policies, and the idea that politicians from left to right are only objecting to Trump's particular policy because they've "been told" to by a partisan media seems a lot less likely than there is actually something wrong here. It feels as if people are trying to gloss over the ugliest aspects and implications of this whole thing by packaging it as just policy like any other. Catherine, I respect you and the work you do, but when you compare yourself to someone coming from seven countries that are affected by severe political violence, famine, economic precariousness, and the attendant medical crises caused by war-devastated infrastructure, I get exasperated - you weren't in danger of being deported to anything like those situations, and being singled out for unfair checks as a result of malicious reporting while you remained in your home with your husband is rather different to being subject to a blanket ban that means you're suddenly on one side of airport Customs and your family is on the other, you're being told you can't meet a lawyer, and for all you know you're about to be slung onto a plane to your last port of embarkation. The initial ban on those green card holders was lifted in response to public pressure of the sort that people here are dismissing as just partisan hype, and I agree with PhuturePriest that the whole unworkable and cruel thing was deliberately rushed through within days to appeal to a certain streak of populist sentiment. If the Trump admin wanted serious immigration policy they would have spent time drafting one, rather than plunging headlong into a situation in which the government's own attorneys couldn't give an answer to certain key questions during the hearing in which the stay was imposed, as they didn't even have the right information to represent what they were supposed to be representing. To be fair, the Attorney General was trying to be a liberal hero and nothing more. Constitutional lawyers from both side of the isle said what Trump did was lawful. The Attorney General refusing to enforce a law she doesn't agree with is grounds for termination. It would be no different than if a police officer didn't believe cocaine should be illegal and refused to arrest people snorting cocaine right in front of the police station. The attorney Gneneral may not have agreed with the law but unless it is struck down in court, it is lawful according to lawyers on both sides of the isle. Not saying I agree with this ban but its not unlawful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now