Attention Guest: Please make sure that you are using a unique password to login to MESO. If you have used your MESO password on another website, change it immediately. You should NEVER share the same login credentials on multiple websites.

Banning immigrants from "certain" countries

Discussion in 'Political Discourse' started by tenpoundsleft, Jan 26, 2017.

  1. Docd187123

    Docd187123 Member

    Common sense isn't so common when trump is in the picture lol.

    So why have we not banned every enemy who wants us dead on a travel ban?

    Since the judiciary has set a TRO why waste time fighting the TRO? If as you state it's only to allow time to assess protocols and procedures for our safety, why use this PRECIOUS temporary time to fight a TRO rather than work on those protocols. The initial travel ban was for 90 days and issued in February was it not? Why waste a month and a half of the PRECIOUS AND TEMPORARY time rewriting it rather than pushing for new protocols? Bc he wants to make good on his Muslim travel ban promise and test the limits of how long he can get away with it is a logical assumption.

    So you admit we will be attacked regardless yet you waste time arguing over the temporary ban rather than push for the actual vetting procedures that the ban is supposed to give time to establish lol. That's funny to me. It's funny also how the Trump aide is quoted as saying that trump's vetting procedures would arguably not increase any safety. It's also funny how 1000+ state department officials signed the memo they disagree this plan would increase safety as did heads of intelligence agencies.

    And the temporary ban, the only thing you're arguing about is supposed to stop them from coming here? We banned the Chinese in the late 1800s yet they still came in. We banned communists during the Cold War. They still got in. We ban illegal drugs from entering the country yet billions of dollars worth still come in. Remember your comment about common sense? Yea...
     
    Eman likes this.
  2. Docd187123

    Docd187123 Member

    Let's take the flip side to your argument. Choking on food kills more Americans than terrorists so let's temporarily ban all food until we can asses protocols to see which foods are impossible to choke on. Bees kill more a,eek and than terrorists. Let's ban those bees temporarily to find the good ones from the bad ones....

    image.png
     
    Eman likes this.
  3. kawilt

    kawilt Member

    He probably meant a "formal declaration of war" by congress as your constitution states. Your presidents have alway's had a way of getting around that pesky piece of paper.;)
     
  4. outkicked1

    outkicked1 Member


    I'm glad to see you admit you were wrong about the justices. I'm glad to educate, so you won't be wrong, since you were wrong. I'm glad you say I'm correct about congress voting for military engagement. Just like those examples, and you editing words out of the fourteenth, to make it fit your point the most of your post is slightly skewed and incorrect in just the right places to make it fit.

    I guess you could say most of your responses are a justice short of a full bench.

    I will post further corrections, since we have you admitting I'm correct, and you were wrong twice, we're about a fifth of the way where we need to be.

    The problem is, you are intelligent, and pointing out the flaws requires thought, and A LOT of typing.
     
  5. Docd187123

    Docd187123 Member

    I will always defend my position to the best of my ability until I'm shown concrete evidence to the contrary. I have no problems admitting mistakes, should I be proven wrong, BUT there must be proof.
    Also, just for clarification, I did not edit any words out of the 14th amendment. I copied and pasted it directly from the web page I was on. The editing wasn't done by me.

    Since we are on the topic of editing posts, are you going to admit you edited out the constitutionality part about executive power from States v. Curtiss-Wright quote? Well you or wherever you quoted it from?

    Or how about the fact that you quoted Jefferson's opinion on executive power of ambassadorial appointments as a defense In Regards to immigration?

    I'll await your corrections and admittance of error before pointing out youre a conservative away from a liberal-majority bench
     
  6. outkicked1

    outkicked1 Member

    I have SO much to type on this phone. I'm just going to do it piece by piece at my leisure so it isn't so daunting. Remember you said you will admit when you are wrong.

    Immigration and Nationality act of 1965- banned discrimination of immigrants based on nationality.

    Obama era 2011visa waiver program.

    Excludes visa waiver for travelers from certain areas e.g. Syria.

    What is it called when travelers from one area can obtain a visa waiver, but travelers from another area cannot gain a waiver based on where they're from.

    It's called discrimination based on nationality. They can't get a waiver because they are coming from Syria etc.

    It doesn't matter the law is about visa waivers, it's allowing something for some people that it disallows for other people just because of where they are traveling from.

    Last in time rule. 1965 immigrant anti discrimination based on nationality is invalidated.

    2011 is still after 1965
     
  7. XKawN

    XKawN Member

    But... but, the bees. They kill people too. Lol.
     
    outkicked1 likes this.
  8. outkicked1

    outkicked1 Member

    Also people do take preventative measures for bees. There are big sprays and traps. People try to keep bees out of certain areas. Can't stop them all but there are preventative measures. You don't sit on the bee hive and say, oh well can't stop them anyway.

    Same with choking. Choking hazard=recall and "banning" until safer product.
     
  9. outkicked1

    outkicked1 Member


    Go show this chart to the families of 9/11 victims. I'm sure the widow wailing at her husband's grave will appreciate how much more dangerous the bees are.

    Show the families of the Boston bomb attack. Big surprise the perpetrators applied for asylum to trick their way into our country. But our protocols couldn't possibly need checking.

    Show that chat to the 3 dead 4 injured in the 2002 attack at the LA international airport. Tell them it's ok, statistically they should be alive, and who cares because we're fine. Again Muslim extremist that claimed asylum, that said he was fleeing persecution.

    Maybe the chart would help calm the passengers of the 2009 flight where the perpetrator claiming to be a refugee attempted to detonate a bomb he had in his underwear. Luckily it just burnt him.

    It goes on and on. I'm a refugee help me... just kidding I'm going to blow you up now, thanks for the plane ride, bye suckers.
     
  10. outkicked1

    outkicked1 Member

    Or if those are too old of events.
    And you want to forget------ '''"Never Forget"----

    How about the Iraqis charged on Monday. The ones that kidnapped and tortured American's in a bunker in Iraq.

    Then made up a story that they were fleeing persecution, and came here on a plane. Took up residence in Virginia, and were finally caught after lying on naturalization papers and their fingerprints were found in the bunker.

    Sure would like to be on a flight with them. They sound like great neighbors. As long as you stay away from their basement.