9 ms·

How do you suppose you can deal with radicalized immigrants if you're indiscriminate about immigration? It is a temporary ban first of all. Secondly, it is no

How do you suppose you can deal with radicalized immigrants if you're indiscriminate about immigration? It is a temporary ban first of all. Secondly, it is not just about security. It is also about welfare. I'm not a proponent of welfare but if you must have it, then you cannot possibly combine that with unrestricted immigration because the logical outcome of that is a population full of immigrants on welfare voting themselves more welfare. Is that how America was built? No. It was built by hard working intelligent people to a country that is the envy of many today.

danso 10y ago
What makes you think immigrants just come to vote "themselves more welfare"? Many groups of immigrants and refugees start off poor. I don't know where you learned about America, but we have enough resources that things aren't a zero sum game between immigrants and current citizens.
- _andromeda_ 10y ago
  First of all, anyone can learn about anything now. Everything is everywhere now so you cannot lie to anyone about what America is like or what it isn't like. I suggest you forfeit that line of argument. Secondly, riddle me this; do more immigrants vote for the party that promises more government welfare or less government welfare? I don't even know where you're going with this. Finally, no one believes that resources aren't finite and as such it isn't a zero-sum game more than I do. However, when you have speak of how the wealthy/corporations should pay more taxes and those taxes should go to fund more welfare...clearly that's a mindset that says things are scarce and that it is a zero-sum game. One party says expropriate from producers to fund welfare the other says reduce regulation and taxes to incentivise more production. One has a producer mindset, the other has a consumer mindset.
  - matt4077 10y ago
    – Steve Jobs was the son of Syrian immigrants – Segej Brin's parents were also immigrants – Most immigrants don't vote at all, because immigration does not imply citizenship - (this argument intentionally left blank to make dang's life easier) – Most naturalised citizen vote democratic, yes. Jews also voted for Hillary (74%:26% according to https://www.algemeiner.com/2016/11/14/examining-the-jewish-vote/ https://www.algemeiner.com/2016/11/14/examining-the-jewish-v...). So did Harvard grads. Are those two groups also lazy "people with a consumer mindset"?
    - _andromeda_ 10y ago
      >Most naturalised citizen vote democratic Doesn't that mean something to you? It is no wonder many democrats want even more immigrants. Look at a state such as California... 27% of California's population was foreign born, about twice the US percentage. Don't you think these politicians are aware of this and it is undoubtedly the reason they want even more immigrants? It has nothing to do with caring for other humans for them. It is all about increasing the number of democrats as much as possible irregardless of whether it is good for the country or not. Don't let them take you for a ride. >Steve Jobs was the son of Syrian immigrants These occurrences will be there from time to time but look at how and when these immigrants came to America. There was a time when it was much harder to come to America and that meant that only the best people went to America. Not just everyone and anyone. The DV lottery program was the beginning of the end for the right kind of immigration to America. When I look at the caliber of people that actually made it to America from my country before this was introduced, man, they were smart, hardworking and any country losing them to America felt the pinch. Now, the DV program has been sending just about anyone regardless of whether they were adding value to America. It is an indicator that it is on longer understood that even though immigration is good, it is only as good as the caliber of people you let in. Who should be let in you ask? Those seeking education, expatriates, entrepreneurs, scientists etc. Not everyone.
      - danso 10y ago
        > There was a time when it was much harder to come to America and that meant that only the best people went to America. Not just everyone and anyone. The DV lottery program was the beginning of the end for the right kind of immigration to America. The diversity visa lottery program requires that you have a high school diploma and come from a country that has sent very small numbers of people to America. And the DV lottery includes only 50,000 winners. Are you aware of how large America's population is, and how small 50,000 people is relative to the U.S. and to the size of normal annual immigration? Yes, the point of the diversity visa is to add diversity to the immigrant pool, so that it isn't totally dominated by Asia and Latin America, because the U.S. has had historical success with diversity.
  - danso 10y ago
    I suggest you understand that just because "anyone can learn about anything now" doesn't mean that you yourself have fulfilled that promise. For example, you seem to misunderstand the notion of welfare. The mindset behind it is not zero-sum, it's quite the opposite. The hope and expectation is that those who need welfare get the helping hand they need to establish themselves. Again, I can speak from personal experience growing up with food stamps, and now living and working in Silicon Valley.
DanBC 10y ago
She's not immigrating to the US!!!!! She lives and works in Scotland. She was on vacation in Costa Rica. Her plane flies from Costa Rica to Scotland, with a change in the US.
- _andromeda_ 10y ago
  Like I said, it's a temporary ban to allow the President and his team to figure things such as these out. It is also an edge case that can be overlooked because there are other routes to get to her desired destination. She is an Iranian. You and I don't know her. We cannot speak to her credibility. We cannot even speak to the credibility of an actual American who goes to Iran and comes back after a spending some time there let alone hers. How can you know whether she is radicalized unless you're absolutely careful about who comes into your country? These things are happening and cannot be sugarcoated or denied any longer. Something must be done and I for one am glad that Trump is setting such a great example for all other countries.
  - matt4077 10y ago
    You're insane. Could you kindly point out any terrorist acts in the US by any citizen of any of the nationalities now banned? If you want Trump to "be an example for other countries", how should the woman ever get to Costa Rica, considering Costa Rica <-> Iran is probably not popular enough to warrant a direct flight? How exactly is a woman that is not allowed to exit the terminal, and has been through three metal detectors a risk to America? Considering there has been no single incident with any terrorists from the nations in the last 30 years (yeah, I just spoiled the answer for the first question, sorry), would I be expecting too much when asking why nobody thought to pick up the phone and ask immigrations "If I were to ban people from country X, is there anything I should keep in mind". After all, it took DHS less than 6 hours to identify ambiguities with regards to green cards and visas.
    - _andromeda_ 10y ago
      No name calling please. I'm very much sane and the furthest thing from a deplorable so to speak. Please tell me we're not ignoring that most terrorism is Muslim affiliated. That, coupled with the fact that there have been many attacks all over the world by Muslim terrorists leads me to ask a simple question, does it then not make sense to ban people from largely Muslim countries until more can be done to thwart these attacks? Should nothing be done according to you? As for that woman, that is an edge case and it can be tolerated for now until travelers on transit can be isolated more carefully in the future. For now, the ban must be employed because more important things are at stake here i.e. security. >How exactly is a woman that is not allowed to exit the terminal >If you want Trump to "be an example for other countries", how should the woman ever get to Costa Rica, considering Costa Rica <-> Iran is probably not popular enough to warrant a direct flight? I would suggest that they be stopped before coming to America in the first place. Let them use another route until authorities can figure out what the hell is going on. America is after all high on extremists' target priority lists. Don't use this small instance of this woman to discredit the entire ban on these 7 nations' emigrants.
grzm 10y ago
How do you suppose you can deal with radicalized immigrants if you're indiscriminate about immigration? I don't think it's fair to describe the current situation as indiscriminate. There are existing limits. One can reasonably argue whether they're appropriate or adequate or effective, but to imply that there are no limits or vetting at all is disingenuous.
- _andromeda_ 10y ago
  It may not be so as it is but left to the devices of Trump's detractors, the ultimate goal is to be as limitless as you can. Even if that isn't the case, can you honestly say we live in times where we can ignore that more needs to be done? To me, it is absolutely binary; either you think more should be done or you don't. The real debate here is whether Trump's ban constitutes doing what's necessary and I say yes.
  - grzm 10y ago
    If you expect others to engage you in nuanced discussion, you need to do so yourself, which not only means being more careful with language like "indiscriminate", but also includes avoiding sweeping generalizations like "left to the devices of Trump's detractors, the ultimate goal is to be as limitless as you can." All around are accusations of "they're not listening to us", "they don't really understand the problem", "they don't realize the logical conclusion of their positions". A lot of people are barely talking at each other, much less actually with each other. I can — and do — honestly say we live in times where we need to spend a lot more effort in listening and understanding each other, as people, as opposed to partisans.

danso 10y ago

What makes you think immigrants just come to vote "themselves more welfare"? Many groups of immigrants and refugees start off poor. I don't know where you learned about America, but we have enough resources that things aren't a zero sum game between immigrants and current citizens.

_andromeda_ 10y ago
First of all, anyone can learn about anything now. Everything is everywhere now so you cannot lie to anyone about what America is like or what it isn't like. I suggest you forfeit that line of argument. Secondly, riddle me this; do more immigrants vote for the party that promises more government welfare or less government welfare? I don't even know where you're going with this. Finally, no one believes that resources aren't finite and as such it isn't a zero-sum game more than I do. However, when you have speak of how the wealthy/corporations should pay more taxes and those taxes should go to fund more welfare...clearly that's a mindset that says things are scarce and that it is a zero-sum game. One party says expropriate from producers to fund welfare the other says reduce regulation and taxes to incentivise more production. One has a producer mindset, the other has a consumer mindset.
- matt4077 10y ago
  – Steve Jobs was the son of Syrian immigrants – Segej Brin's parents were also immigrants – Most immigrants don't vote at all, because immigration does not imply citizenship - (this argument intentionally left blank to make dang's life easier) – Most naturalised citizen vote democratic, yes. Jews also voted for Hillary (74%:26% according to https://www.algemeiner.com/2016/11/14/examining-the-jewish-vote/ https://www.algemeiner.com/2016/11/14/examining-the-jewish-v...). So did Harvard grads. Are those two groups also lazy "people with a consumer mindset"?
  - _andromeda_ 10y ago
    >Most naturalised citizen vote democratic Doesn't that mean something to you? It is no wonder many democrats want even more immigrants. Look at a state such as California... 27% of California's population was foreign born, about twice the US percentage. Don't you think these politicians are aware of this and it is undoubtedly the reason they want even more immigrants? It has nothing to do with caring for other humans for them. It is all about increasing the number of democrats as much as possible irregardless of whether it is good for the country or not. Don't let them take you for a ride. >Steve Jobs was the son of Syrian immigrants These occurrences will be there from time to time but look at how and when these immigrants came to America. There was a time when it was much harder to come to America and that meant that only the best people went to America. Not just everyone and anyone. The DV lottery program was the beginning of the end for the right kind of immigration to America. When I look at the caliber of people that actually made it to America from my country before this was introduced, man, they were smart, hardworking and any country losing them to America felt the pinch. Now, the DV program has been sending just about anyone regardless of whether they were adding value to America. It is an indicator that it is on longer understood that even though immigration is good, it is only as good as the caliber of people you let in. Who should be let in you ask? Those seeking education, expatriates, entrepreneurs, scientists etc. Not everyone.
    - danso 10y ago
      > There was a time when it was much harder to come to America and that meant that only the best people went to America. Not just everyone and anyone. The DV lottery program was the beginning of the end for the right kind of immigration to America. The diversity visa lottery program requires that you have a high school diploma and come from a country that has sent very small numbers of people to America. And the DV lottery includes only 50,000 winners. Are you aware of how large America's population is, and how small 50,000 people is relative to the U.S. and to the size of normal annual immigration? Yes, the point of the diversity visa is to add diversity to the immigrant pool, so that it isn't totally dominated by Asia and Latin America, because the U.S. has had historical success with diversity.
- danso 10y ago
  I suggest you understand that just because "anyone can learn about anything now" doesn't mean that you yourself have fulfilled that promise. For example, you seem to misunderstand the notion of welfare. The mindset behind it is not zero-sum, it's quite the opposite. The hope and expectation is that those who need welfare get the helping hand they need to establish themselves. Again, I can speak from personal experience growing up with food stamps, and now living and working in Silicon Valley.

DanBC 10y ago

She's not immigrating to the US!!!!! She lives and works in Scotland. She was on vacation in Costa Rica. Her plane flies from Costa Rica to Scotland, with a change in the US.

_andromeda_ 10y ago
Like I said, it's a temporary ban to allow the President and his team to figure things such as these out. It is also an edge case that can be overlooked because there are other routes to get to her desired destination. She is an Iranian. You and I don't know her. We cannot speak to her credibility. We cannot even speak to the credibility of an actual American who goes to Iran and comes back after a spending some time there let alone hers. How can you know whether she is radicalized unless you're absolutely careful about who comes into your country? These things are happening and cannot be sugarcoated or denied any longer. Something must be done and I for one am glad that Trump is setting such a great example for all other countries.
- matt4077 10y ago
  You're insane. Could you kindly point out any terrorist acts in the US by any citizen of any of the nationalities now banned? If you want Trump to "be an example for other countries", how should the woman ever get to Costa Rica, considering Costa Rica <-> Iran is probably not popular enough to warrant a direct flight? How exactly is a woman that is not allowed to exit the terminal, and has been through three metal detectors a risk to America? Considering there has been no single incident with any terrorists from the nations in the last 30 years (yeah, I just spoiled the answer for the first question, sorry), would I be expecting too much when asking why nobody thought to pick up the phone and ask immigrations "If I were to ban people from country X, is there anything I should keep in mind". After all, it took DHS less than 6 hours to identify ambiguities with regards to green cards and visas.
  - _andromeda_ 10y ago
    No name calling please. I'm very much sane and the furthest thing from a deplorable so to speak. Please tell me we're not ignoring that most terrorism is Muslim affiliated. That, coupled with the fact that there have been many attacks all over the world by Muslim terrorists leads me to ask a simple question, does it then not make sense to ban people from largely Muslim countries until more can be done to thwart these attacks? Should nothing be done according to you? As for that woman, that is an edge case and it can be tolerated for now until travelers on transit can be isolated more carefully in the future. For now, the ban must be employed because more important things are at stake here i.e. security. >How exactly is a woman that is not allowed to exit the terminal >If you want Trump to "be an example for other countries", how should the woman ever get to Costa Rica, considering Costa Rica <-> Iran is probably not popular enough to warrant a direct flight? I would suggest that they be stopped before coming to America in the first place. Let them use another route until authorities can figure out what the hell is going on. America is after all high on extremists' target priority lists. Don't use this small instance of this woman to discredit the entire ban on these 7 nations' emigrants.

grzm 10y ago

How do you suppose you can deal with radicalized immigrants if you're indiscriminate about immigration? I don't think it's fair to describe the current situation as indiscriminate. There are existing limits. One can reasonably argue whether they're appropriate or adequate or effective, but to imply that there are no limits or vetting at all is disingenuous.

_andromeda_ 10y ago
It may not be so as it is but left to the devices of Trump's detractors, the ultimate goal is to be as limitless as you can. Even if that isn't the case, can you honestly say we live in times where we can ignore that more needs to be done? To me, it is absolutely binary; either you think more should be done or you don't. The real debate here is whether Trump's ban constitutes doing what's necessary and I say yes.
- grzm 10y ago
  If you expect others to engage you in nuanced discussion, you need to do so yourself, which not only means being more careful with language like "indiscriminate", but also includes avoiding sweeping generalizations like "left to the devices of Trump's detractors, the ultimate goal is to be as limitless as you can." All around are accusations of "they're not listening to us", "they don't really understand the problem", "they don't realize the logical conclusion of their positions". A lot of people are barely talking at each other, much less actually with each other. I can — and do — honestly say we live in times where we need to spend a lot more effort in listening and understanding each other, as people, as opposed to partisans.