I think we should discuss actions based on their real effects. Not the intended ones, the real ones.
The real effects are that a couple hundred people (if that many) have been inconvenienced. In the long run, that's not a huge deal. Annoying, yes. Preventable, yes. But they'll get over it.
Inconvenienced? Being treated like a terrorist for no reason is
inconvenience? Losing a job, losing a house, losing your life because you were locked out of the US for three months is
inconvenience? I beg you have some empathy, sir.
Granted, I'll fully admit the ban was poorly worded, poorly thought out, and consequences of it are less than ideal. But I'd argue that it was made with good intentions at least.
I disagree. Compare the publicly-available data on terrorists who have come to the united states by any means to the states Trump and Bannon targeted. There is no overlap. Therefore, the stated goal is not the actual one. What intentions does the data suggest? That it is the closest that Trump could achieve to his Muslim ban as soon as possible.
I agree that it was mostly a quick and dirty political move to appease his base. But appeasing his base is part of his job. And once again, the list was compiled by Obama. Whose mistake was it to include those countries? I'll admit it was a mistake to not double check. But it's not his fault the list was wrong.
Two problems here. 1: The President's job is to serve the best interests of the people, not to pander to his base. He is not president of Alabama. 2: I beg you to consider the possibility that there exist, in the white house, more than one list of nations. It's actually possible for the president to create a new list of nations all on his own, although I suspect Trump would need an Atlas to name more than three of them. If Trump wanted to, he could create
any list of nations. So yes, in his choice to select, from the wide variety of potential lists at his disposal, the wrong goddamn list is, in fact, his goddamned fault.
The countries you mentioned were or are declared enemies of the united states, and the countries Trump banned, in some cases, worked closely with us? All of those bans were declared slowly and rationally rather than immediately and capriciously? All those restrictions included means to bypass them, exceptions, and some level of critical thought, whereas the trump ban was universal and unimpeachable? These are all very large differences.
Most of the ban is temporary. VERY temporary in political or immigration terms. 3 months is not that long, not even the 4 months for Syria. The only one that isn't currently temporary is the Syrian Refugee ban. Nor is the US alone in effectively banning Syrian immigrants. Many areas of Europe have put up their own walls, made their own camps to contain them. The places that have let them in freely have largely regretted it. I won't say a flat out refusal of them is the solution. I think it's a pretty bad idea myself. But I don't think it's entirely wrong to want to take a step back and consider the situation for a moment and look for a more solid method of dealing with them than what's been used already.
Cut my heart out for an hour, then, and put it back. No harm, no foul.
Furthermore, yes, a number of nations have banned Syrian refugees. All of them have faced international condemnation for it. It is especially hypocritical for the United States to stir up shit with imperialist manipulations for two or three generations, then refuse to accept refugees.
Look, if you're argument as to why this should be allowed is dictatorships do it all the time, then uh yeah. It's also worth mentioning that this is not merely targeted at visa holders, but refugees who completed a rigorous vetting program and green card holders as well. All that along with Trumps repeatedly stated intent is what makes it particularly ugly.
I'm not arguing for a permanent ban. I'm actually very much against the ability for people to travel freely. My point is that it's not as big of a deal as people are making it out to be as long as it remains temporary. I fully agree though that it was poorly considered, poorly worded, and poorly implemented. I do however think the judges are being political in their blocking of it. There is probably a semi-reasonable legal reason to block it, but they're searching for a reason when they wanted to block it all along, not because it's altogether harmful.
Can you provide any piece of evidence that Judges are using illegitimate evidence to block what you say is a totally legal ban? Because when I have to choose between trusting one internet commentator and several federal judges, I think I'm going to give the judges the benifit of the doubt.
Most fundamentally, and if you answer nothing else, answer this: what are you so afraid of? What has you so afraid you'll throw away your basic human compassion?
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 4228452 times)