POLL: Should We Halt Immigration From Some Muslim Nations?...

[rdean]

Trump never said "only some".

 

[bripat9643]

Where does the Constitution require us to admit any of them? What do we have to gain?

What we have to gain is showing the Iraqis and Afghans and now some Syrians -- that if you stuck your necks out to help us when we were fighting or occupying your country, that we won't abandon you now that you are hunted and abused.

Constitution calls for establishing normal immigration and naturalization. Under the circumstances --- if you cannot screen by NORMAL methods because their host country and their records are gone --- you should NOT be accepting waves of immigrants from a terrorist infested state..

But like I said -- A HALT -- is going too far and would be abused. And THAT is most likely UNConstitutional to make RELIGION any part of that criteria. If you go by countries --- Saudi would have to be on that list. You do that and our asses better not show in the Mid East for a couple centuries..

The Constitution does not compel Congress to allow anyone to immigrate here, and how is preventing them from "abandoning" them? If they have to live in the shit holes they created, perhaps they'll do something to clean them up.

Don't think you understand the commitment some of these folks made to help US when we were in their country. Many are the security, translators, local politicians, and informants that helped our military operations there. And now they are hunted and their families are threatened. Abandoning them would send a message that if you ASSIST the US in any of our overseas operations -- that you will be left on your own when we leave.

If you want to make our sucky foreign policy WORSE and get LESS cooperation from the more moderate and western leaning in the region --- leaving them and their families there to DIE after we skiddadle is a great plan..

Prove that any of these refugees did anything for the United States.

I NEVER blow smoke on a message board. I worked in Intelligence for about 7 years and know how this goes. It happened with Vietnam, It happened in the Balkans, and lately there are 10s of Thousands of protected status refugees eligible from Iraq, Afganistan, Somalia and other places we've had "boots on the ground"...

Don't need to show the GENERAL agreements -- but here's a memo from the Dept of State PRIORITIZING these type of people above all others..

Iraqi Refugee Processing Fact Sheet

In identifying Iraqi cases for referral to the USRAP, UNHCR and DOS have been prioritizing 11 categories of especially vulnerable refugees, including individuals who are affiliated with the U.S. government and religious minorities, among others.

Iraqi refugees may gain access to this program through referrals from UNHCR, a U.S. Embassy, or certain NGOs. In addition, Iraqi nationals who worked for the U.S. government, a U.S. contractor, or a U.S.-based media organization or NGO, and their family members can apply directly to the USRAP in Jordan, Egypt and Iraq without a UNHCR referral. Iraqi applicants will also be considered for resettlement if an eligible family member applies on their behalf in the United States by filing Form I-130, a Petition for Alien Relative.

They only problem with your claim is that Obama has mentioned no such thing.

 

[bripat9643]

BTW --- providing shelter for those who HELPED us in Iraq and Afghan is so vitally important -- it shows how UNPREPARED the Turumph is to be making those stupid sweeping statements about "halting Muslim immigration". It ain't that easy. And we have TWO meglomaniac power whores running for Prez that want US to think it is -- that simple..

These are Syrian refugees, not Iraqis, so your claim is moot.

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW --- providing shelter for those who HELPED us in Iraq and Afghan is so vitally important -- it shows how UNPREPARED the Turumph is to be making those stupid sweeping statements about "halting Muslim immigration". It ain't that easy. And we have TWO meglomaniac power whores running for Prez that want US to think it is -- that simple..

These are Syrian refugees, not Iraqis, so your claim is moot.

Not so fast.. The Temporary Protected status priorities applies to the Syrian factions as well that we backed for their Democratic ideals. They are now target practice in Syria.. All of these American allies go to the FRONT of the line..

You think we can set these people up and abandon them like we did at the Bay of Pigs??

 

[bripat9643]

BTW --- providing shelter for those who HELPED us in Iraq and Afghan is so vitally important -- it shows how UNPREPARED the Turumph is to be making those stupid sweeping statements about "halting Muslim immigration". It ain't that easy. And we have TWO meglomaniac power whores running for Prez that want US to think it is -- that simple..

These are Syrian refugees, not Iraqis, so your claim is moot.

Not so fast.. The Temporary Protected status priorities applies to the Syrian factions as well that we backed for their Democratic ideals. They are now target practice in Syria.. All of these American allies go to the FRONT of the line..

You think we can set these people up and abandon them like we did at the Bay of Pigs??

There's no reason to import them to the United States. They can be protected in Syria or neighboring countries.

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW --- providing shelter for those who HELPED us in Iraq and Afghan is so vitally important -- it shows how UNPREPARED the Turumph is to be making those stupid sweeping statements about "halting Muslim immigration". It ain't that easy. And we have TWO meglomaniac power whores running for Prez that want US to think it is -- that simple..

These are Syrian refugees, not Iraqis, so your claim is moot.

Not so fast.. The Temporary Protected status priorities applies to the Syrian factions as well that we backed for their Democratic ideals. They are now target practice in Syria.. All of these American allies go to the FRONT of the line..

You think we can set these people up and abandon them like we did at the Bay of Pigs??

There's no reason to import them to the United States. They can be protected in Syria or neighboring countries.

Nobody can be protected in Syria right now. And neighboring countries have no MORAL reason to give these folks any priority because they helped america --- when MILLIONS are fleeing the region.

I'm just saying -- making stupid BLANKET statements proves how little Turumph and the Stop Muslim movement understand our allegiances and alliances in the war on terrorism.

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water -- kinda thing.

 

[bripat9643]

BTW --- providing shelter for those who HELPED us in Iraq and Afghan is so vitally important -- it shows how UNPREPARED the Turumph is to be making those stupid sweeping statements about "halting Muslim immigration". It ain't that easy. And we have TWO meglomaniac power whores running for Prez that want US to think it is -- that simple..

These are Syrian refugees, not Iraqis, so your claim is moot.

Not so fast.. The Temporary Protected status priorities applies to the Syrian factions as well that we backed for their Democratic ideals. They are now target practice in Syria.. All of these American allies go to the FRONT of the line..

You think we can set these people up and abandon them like we did at the Bay of Pigs??

There's no reason to import them to the United States. They can be protected in Syria or neighboring countries.

Nobody can be protected in Syria right now. And neighboring countries have no MORAL reason to give these folks any priority because they helped america --- when MILLIONS are fleeing the region.

I'm just saying -- making stupid BLANKET statements proves how little Turumph and the Stop Muslim movement understand our allegiances and alliances in the war on terrorism.

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water -- kinda thing.

Neighboring countries like Jordan already are providing sanctuary to millions of refugees. They will create room for more if the United States gives them incentives to do so, like economic and military aid. That's a much better solution than bringing them here where they become a permanent problem for America.

 

[Kondor3]

Perhaps this is a good time to simply halt ALL immigration for a decade or two... we're full-up and don't need any more, anyway.

 

[Picaro]

Perhaps this is a good time to simply halt ALL immigration for a decade or two... we're full-up and don't need any more, anyway.

We imposed immigration restrictions from 1920-24 to 1965 or so. Certainly didn't hurt us; it allowed a large middle class to grow, millions of immigrants to assimilate and see their children prosper, unlike today. It's just mindlessly stupid to keep letting people in, especially illlegal aliens and 7th century murder cultists.

 

[bullwinkle]

I know Muslims that have assimilated into American culture quit well recently. For example, I know a hard working kid from Libyia that is chill as fuck and detests ISIS. He also loves America.

We don't need good law abiding American Muslims living in more fear of the US Government than ISIS.

I agree. What is your friend's position on Sharia?

Longknife, I've heard this sharia-based hysteria for so long now, I got off track. Oklahoma, I think, even legislated against it. So tell me again, what IS sharia law? I get the impression it is a fear that America will toss established law in favor of sharia law if there is a conflict. Is that what you mean?

 

[Kondor3]

The definition of Sharia Law is readily available online - let's avoid the Ramadan Rush and not quibble about definitions.

It is enough for the Man on the Street to understand that Sharia Law is the canonical corpus juris of Islam, with variations in interpretation and application.

It is enough for the Man on the Street to understand that Sharia Law is woven into the fabric of Secular Law in most countries and regions dominated by Islam.

It is enough for the Man on the Street to understand that Sharia Law is actually substituted for Secular Law in a variety of areas or regions dominated by Islam.

It is enough for the Man on the Street to understand that Sharia Law and its secular derivatives is substantively different than Secular Law in The West.

It is enough for the Man on the Street to understand that Sharia Law remains operative in the internal governance of Muslim immigrant communities world-wide.

It is enough for the Man on the Street to understand that Sharia Law is quietly and figuratively imposed upon members of those Muslim immigrant communities.

It is enough for the Man on the Street to understand that as immigrant Muslim community populations increase, so does the demand for open practice of Sharia Law.

It is enough for the Man on the Street to understand that Sharia Law is largely alien to Secular Law in The West and perpetuates the isolation of such communities.

It is enough for the Man on he Street to remember that Western Man spilled his blood and spent generations freeing himself from the slavish yoke of Canonical Law.

It is enough for the Man on the Street to recognize Sharia Law as representative of an older and more primitive mindset with an alien twist that is unwelcome in The West.

It is enough for the Man on the Street to realize that 'Creeping Sharia' is to be avoided and repulsed in our public life and not imposed upon Muslim immigrant communities.

Was there anything else?

 

[Sundance508]

Donald Trump is currently being savaged by the Democrats and Communist/Progressive MSM, for suggesting halting all immigration from Muslim Nations. But what about halting immigration from some Muslim Nations?

Our Government is currently accepting thousands of Immigrants from known Terrorist-havens like Syria, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. How do you feel about it? Thanks.

I say we should halt the immigration of all muslims....period. Except in a very few cases wherein they might have something to contribute to this society of a urgent or special need....which would be a small number.

What most do not understand is that even if we were able to vet all the muslim immigrants which even the head of Obama's FBI has admitted we cannot....the real problem is the children....they are very susceptible to being radicalized and in fact a great many of them have been...in fact statistics show they are the ones who have committed the majority of muslim attacks on Americans in America.

American-born children of immigrants proving fruitful recruiting ground for jihad in U.S.

 

[Geaux4it]

We're wasting money on these invaders. For what is cost the tax payer to fund just one invader here in the US, could fund 50 of the invaders over there.

So what is the advantage here for America? If we really wanted to help, why not send them the $$$ as its 50 times more cost efficient?

-Geaux

 

[Picaro]

I know Muslims that have assimilated into American culture quit well recently. For example, I know a hard working kid from Libyia that is chill as fuck and detests ISIS. He also loves America.

We don't need good law abiding American Muslims living in more fear of the US Government than ISIS.

I agree. What is your friend's position on Sharia?

Longknife, I've heard this sharia-based hysteria for so long now, I got off track. Oklahoma, I think, even legislated against it. So tell me again, what IS sharia law? I get the impression it is a fear that America will toss established law in favor of sharia law if there is a conflict. Is that what you mean?

Gee, why not just have everybody write up their own individual legal codes, and have 330 million separate ones? That way nobody will feel discriminated against, right? ... lol

 

[Slave2the$]

Ya know the Orlando shooter was born here right?

You're sitting on your couch one day and a spider bites you. Ouch! You kill it but you search the house and find more baby spiders. You search harder and you find the web with the momma spider and another uhatched egg sack. You then destroy the nest.Do you go outside and find more spiders to bring into the house or do close the windows and doors to keep them out? I would close all the windows and doors.

 

[bullwinkle]

The definition of Sharia Law is readily available online - let's avoid the Ramadan Rush and not quibble about definitions.

It is enough for the Man on the Street to understand that Sharia Law is the canonical corpus juris of Islam, with variations in interpretation and application.

It is enough for the Man on the Street to understand that Sharia Law is woven into the fabric of Secular Law in most countries and regions dominated by Islam.

It is enough for the Man on the Street to understand that Sharia Law is actually substituted for Secular Law in a variety of areas or regions dominated by Islam.

It is enough for the Man on the Street to understand that Sharia Law and its secular derivatives is substantively different than Secular Law in The West.

It is enough for the Man on the Street to understand that Sharia Law remains operative in the internal governance of Muslim immigrant communities world-wide.

It is enough for the Man on the Street to understand that Sharia Law is quietly and figuratively imposed upon members of those Muslim immigrant communities.

It is enough for the Man on the Street to understand that as immigrant Muslim community populations increase, so does the demand for open practice of Sharia Law.

It is enough for the Man on the Street to understand that Sharia Law is largely alien to Secular Law in The West and perpetuates the isolation of such communities.

It is enough for the Man on he Street to remember that Western Man spilled his blood and spent generations freeing himself from the slavish yoke of Canonical Law.

It is enough for the Man on the Street to recognize Sharia Law as representative of an older and more primitive mindset with an alien twist that is unwelcome in The West.

It is enough for the Man on the Street to realize that 'Creeping Sharia' is to be avoided and repulsed in our public life and not imposed upon Muslim immigrant communities.

Was there anything else?

Kondor3, thank you for a sensible and cogent comment on Sharia law. I wish I had said it as you have. But my question is, are Americans in fear that Sharia law will supersede our national secular law? And I ask because it seems a very remote possibility, actually and impossibility to me, yet some are driven to take action against Sharia law even though it is only a 'what if' in reality. I'd very much appreciate your opinion on this?

 

[paulitician]

Wow, a Landslide. I didn't really expect that.

 

[paulitician]

Donald Trump is currently being savaged by the Democrats and Communist/Progressive MSM, for suggesting halting all immigration from Muslim Nations. But what about halting immigration from some Muslim Nations?

Our Government is currently accepting thousands of Immigrants from known Terrorist-havens like Syria, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. How do you feel about it? Thanks.

Just for the record. I voted no to a HALT because a HALT is an admission that government cannot do it's Constitutional duties and PROPERLY vet these people. FIX THAT. Even Trump conditioned a halt to "figuring out what is going on".

However -- i don't want monstrous immigration from these countries under current conditions.

A HALT would make it impossible to rescue "American sympathizers" from the messes we created in Iraq, Afghan, Somalia and other badly handled interventions. People who ASSISTED us while we WERE there are now valid humanitarian refugees. We owe those people.. And turning our backs on them would be a mistake.

Where does the Constitution require us to admit any of them? What do we have to gain?

What we have to gain is showing the Iraqis and Afghans and now some Syrians -- that if you stuck your necks out to help us when we were fighting or occupying your country, that we won't abandon you now that you are hunted and abused.

Constitution calls for establishing normal immigration and naturalization. Under the circumstances --- if you cannot screen by NORMAL methods because their host country and their records are gone --- you should NOT be accepting waves of immigrants from a terrorist infested state..

But like I said -- A HALT -- is going too far and would be abused. And THAT is most likely UNConstitutional to make RELIGION any part of that criteria. If you go by countries --- Saudi would have to be on that list. You do that and our asses better not show in the Mid East for a couple centuries..

The Constitution does not compel Congress to allow anyone to immigrate here, and how is preventing them from "abandoning" them? If they have to live in the shit holes they created, perhaps they'll do something to clean them up.

Don't think you understand the commitment some of these folks made to help US when we were in their country. Many are the security, translators, local politicians, and informants that helped our military operations there. And now they are hunted and their families are threatened. Abandoning them would send a message that if you ASSIST the US in any of our overseas operations -- that you will be left on your own when we leave.

If you want to make our sucky foreign policy WORSE and get LESS cooperation from the more moderate and western leaning in the region --- leaving them and their families there to DIE after we skiddadle is a great plan..

It all gets back to us changing our foreign policy completely. We need to end this Permanent War. We need to stop all the meddling. Especially in the Middle East, we're the main cause of most of the chaos and carnage there. We don't belong in those lands. We should come home.

 

[paulitician]

Just for the record. I voted no to a HALT because a HALT is an admission that government cannot do it's Constitutional duties and PROPERLY vet these people. FIX THAT. Even Trump conditioned a halt to "figuring out what is going on".

However -- i don't want monstrous immigration from these countries under current conditions.

A HALT would make it impossible to rescue "American sympathizers" from the messes we created in Iraq, Afghan, Somalia and other badly handled interventions. People who ASSISTED us while we WERE there are now valid humanitarian refugees. We owe those people.. And turning our backs on them would be a mistake.

Where does the Constitution require us to admit any of them? What do we have to gain?

What we have to gain is showing the Iraqis and Afghans and now some Syrians -- that if you stuck your necks out to help us when we were fighting or occupying your country, that we won't abandon you now that you are hunted and abused.

Constitution calls for establishing normal immigration and naturalization. Under the circumstances --- if you cannot screen by NORMAL methods because their host country and their records are gone --- you should NOT be accepting waves of immigrants from a terrorist infested state..

But like I said -- A HALT -- is going too far and would be abused. And THAT is most likely UNConstitutional to make RELIGION any part of that criteria. If you go by countries --- Saudi would have to be on that list. You do that and our asses better not show in the Mid East for a couple centuries..

The Constitution does not compel Congress to allow anyone to immigrate here, and how is preventing them from "abandoning" them? If they have to live in the shit holes they created, perhaps they'll do something to clean them up.

Don't think you understand the commitment some of these folks made to help US when we were in their country. Many are the security, translators, local politicians, and informants that helped our military operations there. And now they are hunted and their families are threatened. Abandoning them would send a message that if you ASSIST the US in any of our overseas operations -- that you will be left on your own when we leave.

If you want to make our sucky foreign policy WORSE and get LESS cooperation from the more moderate and western leaning in the region --- leaving them and their families there to DIE after we skiddadle is a great plan..

Prove that any of these refugees did anything for the United States.

Yeah, i still haven't observed anyone presenting an overwhelming upside to allowing Thousands in from these Terrorist-havens. I think a temporary halt to Immigration from some of these nations is a reasonable cautious measure.

 

[Londoner]

Nope. Let the market decide. If free suppliers choose not to employ them, and if free citizens choose not to integrate them at the social and institutional level, than the desire to come here will naturally dry up.