The Travel Ban

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Clean, Feb 10, 2017.

  1. mchammer

    mchammer 1,000+ Posts

    How do you know whether your first sentence is true when the enhanced vetting process has not been enacted? Maybe those who are likely to be radicalized are not allowed in selectively.
     
    Horn6721 likes this.
  2. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 500+ Posts

    The Trump campaign caused us to fear? You have an unusual way of looking at the situation. If you don't fear (the better description is to be concerned about, but that doesn't fit the Democrat's identity-politics mantra), or fear for someone other than yourself, the possibility of being blown to bits by a pressure cooker, run over by a truck, knifed, or shot by a terrorist there is something wrong with your mental capacity. It wasn't the Trump campaign that caused that fear, it was the actions of foreigners, immigrants and potential immigrants.

    If the percentage of the green card holders and illegal immigrants that commit crimes of the nature you mentioned were higher than native born criminals, would it change your mind about immigration?

    How about performing a study comparing the crimes committed by people that are okay with illegal immigration vs. those that are not? That would be interesting. After all, you would be comparing crimes from a population that lacks a sense of civic duty and honor concerning what it means to be an American citizen with a group that is disposed to following the existing laws.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2017
  3. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    IA
    We know immigrants as a category (illegal and illegal)commit more crimes percentage wise to their total than citizens.
    So it us likely that immigrants commit more if the most heinous crimes in higher percentage to their total as well. There must be some stats on that.
     
  4. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 500+ Posts

    I would guess you are correct given the economic status of a significant portion of illegals, and probably legal immigrants. Economic status is also another important measurement but is always ignored by Democrats because such a high percentage of illegals become dependent on transfer payments.
     
  5. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 5,000+ Posts

    Agree. Crime is more closely correlated to socio-economic status rather than immigration/citizen. Then again, the statistics are more heavily skewed downward given the quality of legal assistance of higher socio-economic demographics.
     
  6. ProdigalHorn

    ProdigalHorn 10,000+ Posts

    These comments were pretty ridiculous on their face. The first of which is that the U.S. government is under a requirement to prove in a court of law whether an immigrant has terrorist ties. The "fact-checker" wanting it to be true does not make it true. The U.S. government has no obligation to take ANYONE in or give ANY green cards.

    And the second is even more idiotic. So you let a person into the country, and he then later commits a crime. So that doesn't count??? Once he sets foot on American soil, any criminal acts he commits must now be attributed not to his background, upbringing our previous philosophy, but by the corrupting influence of American culture, which clearly was the driving force in changing this upstanding person to a criminal...

    Seriously? This is why fact checkers are fast becoming jokes.
     
    Horn6721 and Brad Austin like this.
  7. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 5,000+ Posts

    It's not black/white which is what the initial list put out for the Center for Immigration Studies and Stephen Miller tried to make it out to be. You can't automatically discount the influences that the individual had after getting to the US that contributed to the outcome of landing on this list. That's the point of the fact check. It was Miller's defense of the travel ban directly inferring that the background/location of these individuals was the reason for their activity. Simply looking at the various homegrown radicals deflates that argument.
     
  8. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    "Texas is splitting with other states and defending President Donald Trump's ban on travelers from seven predominantly Muslim nations.

    Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed documents with the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday asking the court to reconsider its decision not to immediately reinstate the ban. Paxton says the ban is a legal exercise of presidential authority....."

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/15/texas-splits-with-other-states-defends-trump-travel-ban.html
     
  9. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 5,000+ Posts

    The world has been turned on it's head. The previous "states rights" states are now arguing for unquestioned Executive Branch power. The Politics Gods must be crazy.
     
  10. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    Husker
    Why do you think the EO was "unquestioned"
    Why would you think Texas did not question and examine the constitutionalty of the EO?

    Just because Texas in this ONE instance supports this EO does not suggest Texas is arguing for any other.
     
  11. NJlonghorn

    NJlonghorn 1,000+ Posts

    I don't think this case raises a real "states rights" issue. The issue (at least as the Washington District Court, the Ninth Circuit panel, and I see it) is that the EO infringes on vested rights possessed by various individuals, such as those who possess a green card or a visa amongst others. The EO infringes on those individual rights without even the slightest effort to afford due process of law. It isn't all that ironic that Texas is supporting the power of the Federal government to infringe on individuals' rights.

    What would be ironic is if Texas supports Federal penalties against sanctuary cities and states. That is a true "states rights" issue.
     
  12. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 500+ Posts

    There is greater correlation, but the causation is behavior. It is not that economic status causes one to be a criminal. The behavioral pattern of the individual causes both problems.
     
  13. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 500+ Posts

    And you can't discount the possibility that after landing in the U.S. nothing was changed to contribute to the actions taken by the individuals, or that they are pre-disposed to such activity based on their history before they arrived in the U.S.
     
  14. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 5,000+ Posts

    Agreed. I'm not discounting that but the list assumes a pre-disposition. That was the point of the fact check essentially saying "is that a safe assumption"?
     
  15. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

  16. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 500+ Posts

    The "fact check" is a joke.

    "Safe" is the key word. If we are going to err, err on the safe side.
     

Share This Page