Jump to content

The Trump Administration 2017-


Recommended Posts

It's not often that Poe and I agree, but on immigration I think he's got a point. Just when did it become the inalienable right of anybody who feels like it to immigrate to America, or anywhere, come to that. The right of any nation to decide who gets to be a citizen and who doesn't is a fundamental aspect of national sovereignty and self determination. There may be arguments to be made in favor of mass immigration - though I can't for the life of me think of any I'd agree with - but acting like the US (or Canada or Britain or Germany or whomever) are violating anybody's rights or failing to live up to some preset moral obligation by limiting immigration is a smokescreen. Why do we owe citizenship to anyone from anywhere who happens to want it? Now if we choose to give it to them, that's fine, but it's ultimately our - and I mean the officials we elect to enact these kinds of policies - choice to make.

 

It's become a common regressive left tactic to shout "racism" at anyone who opposes mass immigration or Islamic immigration. This baffles me. Has white male guilt really sunk its talons so deep into the leftist psyche that they refuse to see why these are terrible immigration policies, from a leftist standpoint? Mass immigration depresses wages, increases living costs and strains public services and infrastructure. Why would progressive people want this? Migrants have a long history of being used as scab labor - and the kind of social solidarity that's a necessary foundation for a generous welfare state and a class conscious working class is exponentially harder to achieve in more heterogeneous societies. And don't get me started on the left and Islamism. Just don't. The status of women, LGBT people, religious minorities and so on under Shari'a law pretty much speaks for itself. It shouldn't take Sam Harris to tell you why allowing it in the west is a bad idea. This just comes across to me as increasing the minority population for the sake of increasing the minority population. Why?

 

Sure, migrant communities have been fairly stable electoral blocs for socialist parties in Europe, but is it worth selling their souls for?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

When America has positioned itself for its entire history as the land of the free, and one our core manifestos says we will take the poor and huddled masses, you can't expect people without access to

Watching you guys yell at a brick wall is hilarious.

As a third party voter, and hearing "wasted vote" on the daily, I am loving that both Clinton and Trump were caught rigging the election (Clinton in the primaries and Trump in the general).   Granted,

Well, sure, we make a distinction between art and the supreme law of the land. Is that really a valid criticism?

It would seem to be yes, because the Statue of Liberty is a little more than a fancy piece of art. It's a symbol placed specifically to be seen right in front of what was once the primary immigration point for the country.

 

 

You sure you have that one right? I don't even recall posting on a healthcare thread, much less declaring that illegal children can die in our streets.

 

The only thread I recall about illegal children was this one where I said they shouldn't be exempt from deportation, which I know bothered you, but was hardly so Scrooge-esque.

 

Yeah-- specifically this part here:

 

"Children of illegal immigrants are the victims of their parents' misdeeds. It's unfortunate, but the blame for the logical consequence of those misdeeds, merely ceasing to continue receiving those benefits (removal), rests on the parents, not the state."

 

So we point the blame on the parents. Sure. No argument from me. But that doesn't fix the problem of turning your back on a possibly sick child in need. We don't need to debate that pint again, but it's part of my larger criticism of conservatism. It's about the financial bottom line and pointing who is at fault and considering that subject closed instead of finding a solution-- because that solution generally comes from spending money.

 

Trump wants to kill the NEA, PBS, and a dozen other social programs to save money. It's never considered a thought that making a couple less aircraft carriers might cover that balance. He's going directly for what seems like a waste to him-- the government giving money to causes that are not for profit or security.

 

We should be better than that.

Edited by Driver
Link to post
Share on other sites
We don't need to debate that pint again, but it's part of my larger criticism of conservatism. It's about the financial bottom line and pointing who is at fault and considering that subject closed instead of finding a solution-- because that solution generally comes from spending money.

 

How did you reach that the conclusion that it was a cost/benefit financial consideration? Seriously, there was no mentioned made of finances and I certainly wasn't considering them at the time, only a broad statement that children are not entitled to keep what their parents steal for them.

 

 

 

Trump wants to kill the NEA, PBS, and a dozen other social programs to save money. It's never considered a thought that making a couple less aircraft carriers might cover that balance. He's going directly for what seems like a waste to him-- the government giving money to causes that are not for profit or security.

 

Trump went after both Lockheed Martin (F-35) and Boeing (Air Force One) during the transition and reviews were ordered a couple days ago on them. The F-35 alone is like hundreds of times more than the NEA and PBS combined, so I'm not sure what the criticism is on that count.

 

As for the NEA and PBS, I rather think they both can be ended. PBS would survive on its own anyway and there's really not all that much separating it from any other station. I'd be okay with keeping C-SPAN as they're a good public service, but they're so lean that they're already independent.

 

 

 

It would seem to be yes, because the Statue of Liberty is a little more than a fancy piece of art. It's a symbol placed specifically to be seen right in front of what was once the primary immigration point for the country.

 

It's a nice symbol, but only that. And not one that we even came up with ourselves. It's not a reason to do something that's not in the interests of the country. Even if a Frenchman had good instincts for where to put it and even if the poet's friend saw fit to put it on a plaque more than 15 years after the statue was dedicated and the previously forgotten poet had died.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What you're doing right now is finding ways to discount what I'm saying, or rationalizing what has been done. That doesn't change the fact that I think they are things that shouldn't have happened in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the immigration issue, I have no problem with reducing the immigration/refugee quota if that's what it takes to make sure they are properly vetted. I have a problem with the religious/regional litmus test. I don't think it is racism or xenophobia. I just think it's misguided.

 

You could defend cutting immigration completely off. You can't defend this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't going to type this part and give you all a much worse opinion of me than you already have (if that's possible), but I wouldn't build a wall. I would build 2 barbed wire fences 100 yards apart. On every post of this fence would be warnings in assorted languages (with drawings for the illiterate), describing what will happen to anyone who tries to cross. I have no problem with legal immigration. Trespassers shall be shot on site.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In ONE court by a liberal judge.

 

With hundreds of airport employees striking and ACLU lawyers rushing to airports and protests being organized...

 

Decent start. Maybe Tex can come by and tell us protestingbis pointless again.

Edited by Driver
Link to post
Share on other sites

In ONE state, by a liberal judge.

 

Oh yeah, it won't matter that the judge who did this was a Federal Judge who was voted on and passed 95-2. It's all hollering about how she's an Obama stooge. At least in my town. Living in a red state....

 

Congressman Lewis was at the Atlanta airport to try and help his one lone Iranian constituent who was supposed to fly into ATL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking for more than one source before I freak out, but I'm seeing something about removing the joint chiefs and national security director from the national security council and installing the national security advisor and the homelands security advisor in their place.

 

That would be Priebus and Bannon.

 

 

In ONE state, by a liberal judge.

 

Oh yeah, it won't matter that the judge who did this was a Federal Judge who was voted on and passed 95-2. It's all hollering about how she's an Obama stooge. At least in my town. Living in a red state....

 

Congressman Lewis was at the Atlanta airport to try and help his one lone Iranian constituent who was supposed to fly into ATL.

I typo-ed. I meant COURT not state.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

With hundreds of airport employees striking and ACLU lawyers rushing to airports and protests being organized...

 

Decent start. Maybe Tex can come by and tell us protestingbis pointless again.

 

I'm kinda doubting that protests had anything to do with a judge making a rather basic ruling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Looking for more than one source before I freak out, but I'm seeing something about removing the joint chiefs and national security director from the national security council and installing the national security advisor and the homelands security advisor in their place.

 

That would be Priebus and Bannon.

 

I can confirm right off the bat that the National Security Advisor is Micheal Flynn and the Homelands Security Advisor is Tom Bossert. So that source seems pretty dubious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking for more than one source before I freak out, but I'm seeing something about removing the joint chiefs and national security director from the national security council and installing the national security advisor and the homelands security advisor in their place.

 

That would be Priebus and Bannon.

 

In ONE state, by a liberal judge.

 

Oh yeah, it won't matter that the judge who did this was a Federal Judge who was voted on and passed 95-2. It's all hollering about how she's an Obama stooge. At least in my town. Living in a red state....

 

Congressman Lewis was at the Atlanta airport to try and help his one lone Iranian constituent who was supposed to fly into ATL.

I typo-ed. I meant COURT not state.

 

Yeah, I figured.

 

And to the top part of this post: "it looks like Trump's getting snuggly with Russia now. I know it sounds bat **** crazy but what if this is because he intends to invade China?"<- I do not think this but it was mentioned in the same comments section as the story about Trump's removal of heads of NSA and the joint chiefs letting Bannon become head of NSA. Until more comes out I will chalk it up to people losing their minds in the "left".

 

In reality I think it was a reorganizing of the Security Council but still.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-holds-calls-with-putin-leaders-from-europe-and-asia/2017/01/28/42728948-e574-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.600a410100b1

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because if everyone stayed home and didn't care, the only voices of opposition would be the victims, who are guilty until proven innocent.

 

You're doing that thing you do where instead of actually talking about the issue, you try to trip me up in semantics or vocabulary terms thinking if you some make me look dumb, it invalidates the fact that something really crappy is happening right now and you can feel in the right cause you won an argument instead of accepted the fact that your party is being taken over by extremists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

With hundreds of airport employees striking and ACLU lawyers rushing to airports and protests being organized...

 

Decent start. Maybe Tex can come by and tell us protestingbis pointless again.

 

I'm kinda doubting that protests had anything to do with a judge making a rather basic ruling.

 

Alt-reality?

 

They stopped traffic. No taxis into JFK.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You're doing that thing you do where instead of actually talking about the issue, you try to trip me up in semantics or vocabulary terms thinking if you some make me look dumb, it invalidates the fact that something really crappy is happening right now and you can feel in the right cause you won an argument instead of accepted the fact that your party is being taken over by extremists.

 

I agreed with Jacen123 on the last page that this part of the Executive Order was probably illegal and would be either struck down or rescinded in short order.

 

And no, I'm not trying to trip you up or make you feel dumb.

 

 

 

Alt-reality?

 

No. I'm saying that the result would have happened whether there were people clogging up the airport or not as long as they received legal representation. If the protesters DID influence the judge, then the judge is indeed a hack and deserves any and all scorn that your neighbors heap upon her. I believe it was a fairly easy call though and am going to assume better of her.

 

For what it's worth, I'm 90% on the side of even peaceful protests being a useless waste of time that makes the protester feel good about themselves. But that's just my personal opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Add in the fact that the countries not under sanction happen to just be the ones where Trump has business interests just seems to highlight the hypocrisy even more.

Poe kinda covered this, but the countries on the list have more to do with diplomatic realities than business interests.

 

The administration would probably love nothing more than to put Saudi Arabia on the list, but foreign policy interests preclude that possibility. Saudi Arabia, unfortunately, has long been the albatross around the US' neck, but there's not an easy way to get out from under the problem. Behind closed doors, people in both parties will privately admit that they wish we could just sever ties with them, but it's not possible for basically two reasons. First, their government, despite sometimes being two-faced, does generally work with the US with stuff like US bases in their country, cooperating on terrorism, and so on. For example, if we had a guy immigrating in that we wanted info on, the Saudi government would probably assist. If we told them, hey- we want you to screen immigrants using the following criteria, etc., they would probably agree. We might have to slip them some benjamins under the table, but they'd do it. This is in contrast to Iran, whose government would likely tell us to f-ck off. So, Iran is on the list and Saudi Arabia isn't, even though Iran is a much more liberal country and actually has civic institutions and stuff like that, and terrorist attacks on the US haven't involved Iranians (but do involve Saudis). (this should also answer your question on this Spam).

 

The second reason is rather obvious (oil).

 

 

And here's where Carrie can come in and shred me-- but I think as a people we should be morally better and want to help each other despite the bottom line. I'm fine with paying more taxes if it means more people can have a healthier, safe life.

Well, you might be surprised to hear that the bottom line isn't always the most important thing to me. That's why I've strongly come out in support for re-negotiating some of our trade deals, even if there is a possibility that some consumer goods prices will rise and some companies will feel the hit. At the end of the day, the share price of Apple or Wal-Mart is not as important to me as whole swaths of the country having no jobs and looking like a third world country.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyways, going back to the immigration order itself- the full text isn't up on the White House site yet, but I found it elsewhere and read it.

 

The sections that ban entry probably should've included a caveat for people that have already been admitted (current visa holders etc), and grandfathered them in. I would expect that maybe we'll get clarification on that from the White House Counsel or maybe Trump himself. Without the clarification, there is a potential issue- I haven't researched it thoroughly yet, but the legality of restricting people who are already green card holders is questionable. There is a section in the order that allows Homeland Security to admit people on a case-by-case basis, so that section could be used as a loophole to admit the current green card holders.

 

People that haven't been granted entry yet, though (i.e. new immigrants), the order can restrict legally.

 

That's my initial read on it; immigration law isn't my strongest area of the law.. never practiced in that area, but that's my understanding (poe, others, feel free to chime in).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like the research and legal back-work (for lack of a better word this early in the morning) was not done on many of these EO's and that's what is making it so hard for people who have to execute the orders.

 

The ACA repeal is another big one that's going to be really mired in a lot of crap. I know from experience that the ACA did reduce some costs at a hospital but there's a lot of things that will change for older people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...