(01-28-2017 10:43 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 10:38 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 10:34 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 10:33 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 10:27 PM)john01992 Wrote:  you can't handle the truth. back in 1939 we didn't have the context in hindsight of knowing Hitlers plans for a final solution. also the current refugee crisis is the biggest refugee crisis to hit the west since WWII. So I think that comparison is 100% valid. but hey if facts are "crass comments" from you then so be it.

Hyperbole using the holocaust is crass and indicative of a limited capacity for rational discussuon.

having zero response to the legitimate comparisons to it is indicative of a limited capacity for rational discussion.

Illegitimate comparison. Simple. Where in the constitution does it say everyone in the world has the right to be a United States citizen.

You go full holocaust due to an inability to recognize reality. You are why Trump won. Well done. Look in the mirror and know he is in office due to people that think as you do.

you scoff at the legitimate comparisons to it for the very same reason. if it is illegitimate then explain why. you haven't done so because you can't.

I didn't scoff. I told you it was an illegitimate comparison. You used it the same way all simple minded people do when they have no valid argument. What part of the United States constitution guarantees citizenship to anyone in the world. Compare it too deep sea diving or landing on the moon. I don't care. Just try to answer the question.

(01-28-2017 10:54 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 10:43 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 10:38 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 10:34 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 10:33 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Hyperbole using the holocaust is crass and indicative of a limited capacity for rational discussuon.

having zero response to the legitimate comparisons to it is indicative of a limited capacity for rational discussion.

Illegitimate comparison. Simple. Where in the constitution does it say everyone in the world has the right to be a United States citizen.

You go full holocaust due to an inability to recognize reality. You are why Trump won. Well done. Look in the mirror and know he is in office due to people that think as you do.

you scoff at the legitimate comparisons to it for the very same reason. if it is illegitimate then explain why. you haven't done so because you can't.

I didn't scoff. I told you it was an illegitimate comparison. You used it the same way all simple minded people do when they have no valid argument. What part of the United States constitution guarantees citizenship to anyone in the world. Compare it too deep sea diving or landing on the moon. I don't care. Just try to answer the question.

then explain why.

(01-28-2017 10:51 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I think this all boils down to this:

1. We do need to get some issues straight with security and immigration.
2. Did it need to be so heavy handed?
3. Did it have to include permanent residents, education visas, and so on?
4. Why was the physical and financial home of Wahhabism (the movement responsible for Muslim extremism), Saudi Arabia, not included?

Don't know the answer to that question but those on here that believe President Trump left them off for personal gain are just being foolish. I doubt seriously if the list has much to do with President Trump picking them. I'm sure the list came from a group of people that our president listens to

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 banned all discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin, replacing the old prejudicial system and giving each country an equal shot at the quotas.

freaking idiots.

(01-28-2017 10:58 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 10:51 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I think this all boils down to this:

1. We do need to get some issues straight with security and immigration.
2. Did it need to be so heavy handed?
3. Did it have to include permanent residents, education visas, and so on?
4. Why was the physical and financial home of Wahhabism (the movement responsible for Muslim extremism), Saudi Arabia, not included?

Don't know the answer to that question but those on here that believe President Trump left them off for personal gain are just being foolish. I doubt seriously if the list has much to do with President Trump picking them. I'm sure the list came from a group of people that our president listens to

IIRC 19 of the 21 hijackers were saudi. this is such a joke.

(01-28-2017 10:58 PM)john01992 Wrote:  The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 banned all discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin, replacing the old prejudicial system and giving each country an equal shot at the quotas.

freaking idiots.

Why do you sound so angry? Everyone, well most, that are far left is very angry and it started over two months ago.

HOMELAND SECURITY is a very good reason and has nothing to do with

discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin

Honestly why are you so upset that our president is trying to put something in place that will most likely be removed with in 90 days once him, and his cabinet have more time. Then congress sits down to work this out with a better plan of action on venting people.

(01-28-2017 10:58 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 10:51 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I think this all boils down to this:

1. We do need to get some issues straight with security and immigration.
2. Did it need to be so heavy handed?
3. Did it have to include permanent residents, education visas, and so on?
4. Why was the physical and financial home of Wahhabism (the movement responsible for Muslim extremism), Saudi Arabia, not included?

Don't know the answer to that question but those on here that believe President Trump left them off for personal gain are just being foolish. I doubt seriously if the list has much to do with President Trump picking them. I'm sure the list came from a group of people that our president listens to

This might be a stretch but could this be why?

During a rally on August 21, the day Trump created four of those companies, he said he gets along well with Saudi Arabia.

"They buy apartments from me," Trump said during the Alabama rally. "They spend $40 million, $50 million. Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-r...udi-arabia



Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

U.S. District Judge Ann Donnelly upholds the U.S. Constitution, ban is stayed. For the moment, we still live in a nation of laws. Bigly.

(01-28-2017 10:58 PM)john01992 Wrote:  The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 banned all discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin, replacing the old prejudicial system and giving each country an equal shot at the quotas.

freaking idiots.

Oh come on Johnny boy...

The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, also known as the Hart-Celler Act, abolished an earlier quota system based on national origin and established a new immigration policy based on reuniting immigrant families and attracting skilled labor to the United States.

http://www.history.com/topics/us-immigration-since-1965

Yes, you are a freaking idiot for changing the wording.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(01-28-2017 11:07 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 10:58 PM)john01992 Wrote:  The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 banned all discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin, replacing the old prejudicial system and giving each country an equal shot at the quotas.

freaking idiots.

Oh come on Johnny boy...

The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, also known as the Hart-Celler Act, abolished an earlier quota system based on national origin and established a new immigration policy based on reuniting immigrant families and attracting skilled labor to the United States.

http://www.history.com/topics/us-immigration-since-1965

Yes, you are a freaking idiot for changing the wording.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lol. I guess if an foriegn army invades we have to give them visas. Lol

Simple simple simple. Doubling down on the same dogma. There may five democrats in office after the next elections.

(01-28-2017 10:27 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 10:23 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 10:15 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Why do people want a bunch of muslim refugees in the USA?

Personally? Because America is a nation of immigrants, those people are likely facing death if they stay, and frankly, its the right thing to do.

No, it isn't. Knowing what has happened to Sweden, Germany, England, and Belgium, how can you still say that you want the same thing? It doesn't make you more virtuous. Stop pretending.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What happened to Sweeden, Germany, France and Belgium is terrible, but lets not pretend any of those countries are known for their amazing security.

(01-28-2017 10:36 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 10:23 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 10:15 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Why do people want a bunch of muslim refugees in the USA?

Personally? Because America is a nation of immigrants, those people are likely facing death if they stay, and frankly, its the right thing to do.

Is American the closes country? If not why fly half way around the globe?
Is American the only country?
Is American suppose to protect everyone in the world?

Should American tax dollars be spent to support these people just because they might face death? Which you really don't have a clue if they would or wouldn't. Just what the media shows you?

Just as many refugee's move to other countries, but surely you can understand why any immigrant would want to move to the United States.

America should support anyone who doesn't receive the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, whether or not they are on our soil or not I do not want our country to be an isolationist state.

(01-28-2017 11:07 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 10:58 PM)john01992 Wrote:  The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 banned all discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin, replacing the old prejudicial system and giving each country an equal shot at the quotas.

freaking idiots.

Oh come on Johnny boy...

The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, also known as the Hart-Celler Act, abolished an earlier quota system based on national origin and established a new immigration policy based on reuniting immigrant families and attracting skilled labor to the United States.

http://www.history.com/topics/us-immigration-since-1965

Yes, you are a freaking idiot for changing the wording.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I copied that wording straight from a NYT article.

that act ended a racist immigration quote system as you so claim. it is the end to eight decades of massive racism in our immigration system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Quota_Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1917

(01-28-2017 11:12 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 10:27 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 10:23 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 10:15 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Why do people want a bunch of muslim refugees in the USA?

Personally? Because America is a nation of immigrants, those people are likely facing death if they stay, and frankly, its the right thing to do.

No, it isn't. Knowing what has happened to Sweden, Germany, England, and Belgium, how can you still say that you want the same thing? It doesn't make you more virtuous. Stop pretending.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What happened to Sweeden, Germany, France and Belgium is terrible, but lets not pretend any of those countries are known for their amazing security.

So you are saying they might have benefited from having a plan in place of venting immigrants a little more closely instead of a open door?

If not then how could they have stopped it?

(01-28-2017 11:10 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 11:07 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 10:58 PM)john01992 Wrote:  The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 banned all discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin, replacing the old prejudicial system and giving each country an equal shot at the quotas.

freaking idiots.

Oh come on Johnny boy...

The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, also known as the Hart-Celler Act, abolished an earlier quota system based on national origin and established a new immigration policy based on reuniting immigrant families and attracting skilled labor to the United States.

http://www.history.com/topics/us-immigration-since-1965

Yes, you are a freaking idiot for changing the wording.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lol. I guess if an foriegn army invades we have to give them visas. Lol

Simple simple simple. Doubling down on the same dogma. There may five democrats in office after the next elections.

these are people. trying to escape from from a war torn region that has been hell on earth for the last two years.

(01-28-2017 11:17 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 11:07 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 10:58 PM)john01992 Wrote:  The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 banned all discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin, replacing the old prejudicial system and giving each country an equal shot at the quotas.

freaking idiots.

Oh come on Johnny boy...

The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, also known as the Hart-Celler Act, abolished an earlier quota system based on national origin and established a new immigration policy based on reuniting immigrant families and attracting skilled labor to the United States.

http://www.history.com/topics/us-immigration-since-1965

Yes, you are a freaking idiot for changing the wording.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I copied that wording straight from a NYT article.

that act ended a racist immigration quote system as you so claim. it is the end to eight decades of massive racism in our immigration system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Quota_Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1917

Yeah... I'll take the quote that comes from the History channel rather than the one from the NYT... good try though!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(01-28-2017 11:05 PM)58-56 Wrote:  U.S. District Judge Ann Donnelly upholds the U.S. Constitution, ban is stayed. For the moment, we still live in a nation of laws. Bigly.

What part of the constitution? What part explicitly states we cannot temporarily ban people from countries that support terrorism.

Since the question wasn't answered earlier you get a shot.

(01-28-2017 11:18 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 11:12 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 10:27 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 10:23 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 10:15 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Why do people want a bunch of muslim refugees in the USA?

Personally? Because America is a nation of immigrants, those people are likely facing death if they stay, and frankly, its the right thing to do.

No, it isn't. Knowing what has happened to Sweden, Germany, England, and Belgium, how can you still say that you want the same thing? It doesn't make you more virtuous. Stop pretending.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What happened to Sweeden, Germany, France and Belgium is terrible, but lets not pretend any of those countries are known for their amazing security.

So you are saying they might have benefited from having a plan in place of venting immigrants a little more closely instead of a open door?

If not then how could they have stopped it?

Each incident has different issues that caused it.

Vetting would have done very little for France for instance because their laws grant French Citizenship to people from Algeria, so it's not like immigration vetting would have stopped such an attack.

(01-28-2017 11:21 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 11:05 PM)58-56 Wrote:  U.S. District Judge Ann Donnelly upholds the U.S. Constitution, ban is stayed. For the moment, we still live in a nation of laws. Bigly.

What part of the constitution? What part explicitly states we cannot temporarily ban people from countries that support terrorism.

That wasn't the part that was stayed, it was the part about not letting even legal residents of the United States into the country simply because they happened to be from Iran.

The federal judge entered an emergency stay for the 100 to 200 people who were here and being detained. The people that were in route are still in limbo