3 ms·
Anyone wondering what the "pro" argument possibly could be: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444370/donald-trump-refugee-executive-order-no-muslim-ban-sepa
by auternach 10y ago
Anyone wondering what the "pro" argument possibly could be: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444370/donald-trump-refugee-executive-order-no-muslim-ban-separating-fact-hysteria http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444370/donald-trump-re....
If you actually want to leave your bubble, read both sides on every issue. If you want to remain in your bubble, read the screaming twitter comments and media only. Choice is yours.
Even the "pro" arguers have serious reservations in this case.
- macrael 10y agoWhat's the pro argument for the wall?
- fingerprinter 10y agoThe National Review? C'mon. That's like quoting Ayn Rand and hoping to be taken seriously.
- bballer 10y agoWell, did you read it? An excerpt: However, there are reports that the ban is being applied even to green-card holders. This is madness. The plain language of the order doesn’t apply to legal permanent residents of the U.S., and green-card holders have been through round after round of vetting and security checks. The administration should intervene, immediately, to stop misapplication. If, however, the Trump administration continues to apply the order to legal permanent residents, it should indeed be condemned. And another: First, the order temporarily halts refugee admissions for 120 days to improve the vetting process, then caps refugee admissions at 50,000 per year. Outrageous, right? Not so fast. Before 2016, when Obama dramatically ramped up refugee admissions, Trump’s 50,000 stands roughly in between a typical year of refugee admissions in George W. Bush’s two terms and a typical year in Obama’s two terms.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]