It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fellow Trump supporters Lets admit the refugee order was poorly executed

page: 9
40
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

BS. There is no rationale whatsoever to making any matter of national security take effect months down the road. We're box cutters banned from US flights 6 months after 911, or immediately after 911 effective on the first flight out? Same thing here. We're dealing with real threats, so instantaneous action was required.




posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

But if there was credible intelligence stating a threat was imminent or even "probable"...don't you think the administration would have said so?

There's a big difference in an administration that acts out of fear and one that acts in direct response to an actual threat...

A2D
edit on 31-1-2017 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Annee

...they could have simply ignored the issues it caused instead of actually addressing them.


You do realize you're going on assumption of what you want to believe.

A few were in the news who eventually got through after being interrogated, some handcuffed, etc.

We do not have a detailed list. We do not have all the stories.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Agree2Disagree

Nothing is rolled out though. It's a temporary stop so something can be put in place, without allowing a gap in the meantime that compromises America. The only reason anyone has a problem with it is because they WANT to and the media is doing everything they can to lie about what it actually is.

The blame goes to Democrats for not doing the job properly and forcing this.


“So I think you’re right to have gone to the places that you visited because there’s a discussion going on now across the region to try to see where there might be common ground to deal with the threat posed by extremism, and particularly with Syria, which has everyone quite worried, Jordan because it’s on their border and they have hundreds of thousands of refugees and they can’t possibly vet all those refugees,” Clinton said before the Jewish United Fund Of Metropolitan Chicago during an October 2013 lunch.

Read more: dailycaller.com...

edit on 31-1-2017 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Like I said, from the available sources I have seen, it seems as though the issues have LARGELY been addressed. I didn't say that I know for a fact they all have been solved....

A2D



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I know what the EO is, the first thing I did when I heard of this was to look up the actual text.

The "temporary travel restriction" is what has been "rolled out" or implemented. I know the reasons...and I largely agree with the premise. I do think that it was done hastily though. That's why there was confusion regarding green card holders and the like... it wasn't well communicated prior to implementation....not all the agencies involved knew how to implement the order...

A2D
edit on 31-1-2017 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Agree2Disagree

According to who .. the media who said so? Do we have any evidence of people with green cards being refused entry without a valid reason?



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

We know because the Trump administration tweaked their policy in response to the green card issues... Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly issued a WAIVER.

A2D



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Agree2Disagree

What you call "acting out of fear" I call proactive. We know we're not dealing with little angels here, we're dealing with proven threats. What does this country gain from not enacting this moratorium ASAP?



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

It's a hard line to draw. I served in the United States Marine Corps so I have first hand experience with what's known as "threat assessment"...I couldn't just see a guy in a dress holding an AK and shoot him on the spot....that would be me acting out of fear...... that being said

Sometimes quick action IS necessary. Sometimes though, it's necessary to have a little patience. How much intelligence you have about the given scenario is what determines how slow or how fast you react.

Case in point: A guy walks into a bank with a gun on his waist. Is he there to rob it, or does he have the right to open carry? Do you do the "proactive" thing and, potentially illegally, detain the guy.... or do you wait to assess the situation further?


A2D
edit on 31-1-2017 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Agree2Disagree

There is a world of difference between not opening your door to someone and flat shooting someone. The bank owner has ever right to post "No firearms allowed on premises" at the entrance and have anyone who violates that ejected from the business. Let's compare apples to apples here. The USA isn't killing or declaring war on anyone here, we're simply being choosey about who gets to come in and we have excellent reason to do so.
edit on 31-1-2017 by burdman30ott6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Agree2Disagree

The USA isn't killing or declaring war on anyone here,


No you got that out the way with Bush and Obama



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Yes I understand. But there was, from my perspective, no reason for it to be done so hastily.

How many months have we went without incident? Would waiting an additional month to really refine the order really be that detrimental?

A2D



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Agree2Disagree

I don't think we're going to sway each other on this one. Your perspective is valid for you, my perspective is valid for me. Fact is, my perspective agrees with the actual actions taken... so I'm just not seeing the foul on this one at all.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Not really trying to sway you, as I largely agree with the order. I see no real foul either....Like I said, I simply wish the Trump administration would have taken a bit more time to really refine the implementation process... No harm in that, if they feel the threat is real enough to warrant quick action, then so be it. I don't have the intelligence gathering abilities that the US government possesses so my threat assessment is not as extensive as theirs....

A2D



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Yep, and so was Obamacare and Cash for Clunkers and a bunch of other government programs and policies.

People shouldn't be so shocked.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Grambler

BS. There is no rationale whatsoever to making any matter of national security take effect months down the road. We're box cutters banned from US flights 6 months after 911, or immediately after 911 effective on the first flight out? Same thing here. We're dealing with real threats, so instantaneous action was required.


That's ridiculous, it was not needed. There was (and is) plenty of time to properly create a process for vetting migrants into the U.S. This was a "I'm in office, watch me work!" move.. nothing more. How many attacks by migrants from those countries have occurred on U.S. soil in the last 15 years? Yea.. exactly. Instantaneous action was clearly not needed.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I never passed judgement, I was paraphrasing the article. The only difference I place on Syrian refugees, is that they potentially have actionable reasons to hate the US.

Here is a first hand account of the current vetting process:

Syrian Refugee Vetting Process

I can sum it up:

Pass 5 interrogations, swear you told the truth, pass a clean background check, medical exam, biometrics, a lot of waiting and that's it.

So, as long as the honor system holds up, we're golden.




posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: fleabit

Obama supposedly did it correctly and they could about 10 to 15 bombers who had slipped through the process too. That's when the stay on Iraqis was put into effect for 6 months while they went back over all the refugees that were allowed in and the ones that were in the system already before moving on to process new ones.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: loam



If we want to help those people, we need to help them there, not here. So that when they prevail, they can make their country great again, to coin a phrase.

Current humanitarian refugee thinking is seriously flawed. It dooms the countries with trouble to generations of chaos and exposes those with the power to do something about it as spineless. Taking in refugees without a plan to fix why they flee in the first place is simply unsustainable and improves nothing.

Is that something we're actually planning on doing? Is this something Trump supports? Is it his plan?

Is there a way we can do this now - in a way that will help real people with shelter, food, medical treatment?

Or do we just send them back and abandon them to their fate?

What is Trumps plan?
edit on 1/31/2017 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join