I have a single question about the immigration regulations:

Good morning, ATS!

On my way to work I thought about the problem with the seven countries and their citizens who are "not priviledged enough" (to quote Spicer) to enter the USA.

And then I asked myself: "What could those countries, especially their governments DO to gain that priviledge back?"

I had only answers which seemed anti-religious, rassistic or polemic.
Maybe you can give me an answer.

But I have to set up some cornerstones to this question:
(+) The level of "priviledge" should be measurable, otherwise it would be completely subjective and could be revoked/granted on the whim of a single person. Which seems quite unfair to me. There should be some quantifiable number to it, not just "Make your people more peaceful and less angry about the western civs!". And it should not go against your constitution, namely the First Amendment, based on religion. This was my anti-religious answer.

(+) There should be a quantifiable level which separates these countries from others who SEEM to be more pro-terroristic to me. But all I can see so far are some maps with Trumps companies and the countries they work with (which are not under this ruling). This was my polemic answer.

(+) There should be something any person in this country could do to improve their "rating". As this is not possible with their specific "race", this was my rassist answer.

See, all I could find to separate these countries from others was based on boring, low-level feelings. There should be far more sophisticated thoughts and answers to this question. Or is the **SNIP*** (as I like to call him, nothing to worry about) just a con man, trying to force countries to make contracts with his companies? Is he a rascist? Is he a populist? I hope not. Because such a person in such a position would be.. dangerous, I guess.

Can you give me a better answer?


Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

a reply to: ManFromEurope

My drunken reply on FB to this question was "Iraq, Sudan, Yemen, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria... do any of these sound like stable governments you would trust information from?" Still sounds fine while sober.

Simple. Clean up the mess in their own dysfunctional countries and demonstrate a capacity and commitment to join the rest of the modern, civilized world.

a reply to: loam

And how does this separate those countries from countries like Kongo, Niger, Chad, Afghanistan, ...?

a reply to: ManFromEurope

You need to look to history for one.

Before that, care to elaborate?

(+) There should be something any person in this country could do to improve their "rating". As this is not possible with their specific "race", this was my rassist answer.

Seriously? Ah man, not gonna feed this sad generalization, because it shows otherwise. Anyway,
—————————————————————————————————————————————————— ———————

Start in the past, to evaluate and reevaluate assertions for a solution.

The Iranian Revolution (also known as the Islamic Revolution or the 1979 Revolution;[4][5][6][7][8][9]) refers to events involving the overthrow of the Pahlavi dynasty under Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, who was supported by the United States[10] and its eventual replacement with an Islamic republic under the Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the revolution, supported by various leftist and Islamist organizations[11] and Iranian student movements.

Source

Iran before the revolution:

Although Reza Shah's intentions were to turn Iran into a modern westernized state, his bans on religious garments alienated and frustrated religious conservatives and traditionalists.

Women and men mixed freely, and educational opportunities were greatly extended. Western clothing and norms also became ingrained into large segments of the Iranian population.

By January 16, 1979, Reza Shah fled Iran during the Iranian Revolution. The revolution started off as a popular movement fueled by outrage against government extravagance, corruption, brutality, and the suppression of individual rights, before being taken over by Ayatollah Khomeini.

Images and Info


—————————————————————————————————————————————————— ———————
Afghanistan:

Before and After the Taliban

a reply to: ManFromEurope

It doesn't and some should join the list as well. What's your point? We are only in day 10 of his Presidency.

a reply to: dreamingawake

Yes, very nice. Being "western" is the only possible answer?

What if there were an Aborignal country.. They would be seen as "stone-age" people, they wouldn't have an aggressive religion, would they be "priviledged"?

a reply to: ManFromEurope

See, all I could find to separate these countries from others was based on boring, low-level feelings

Then you didn't look far enough. Poverty, corruption, indoctrinated religion, war for oil, etc., rascism, all play a part.

a reply to: loam

My point is that there are no known benchmarks those countries have to pass to qualify!
What were the presidents causes of his choices?

Iran, Iraq do have governments. "Clean up their acts" is a very subjective way to look at them.

originally posted by: dreamingawake
a reply to: ManFromEurope

See, all I could find to separate these countries from others was based on boring, low-level feelings

Then you didn't look far enough. Poverty, corruption, indoctrinated religion, war for oil, etc., rascism, all play a part.

"War for oil".. really? USA?

"indoctrinated religion".. Saudi-Arabia seems to be one of the worlds most profilent countries in this case.

"rascism"..


There are just not enough quantifiable points in this to have a benchmark which says confidently "this country.. yes! this country.. no!".

a reply to: ManFromEurope

When a country descends into chaos, a foreign policy by others that permits that nation's brain-trust and natural opposition to flee ensures the demise of that country.

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

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
a reply to: dreamingawake

Yes, very nice. Being "western" is the only possible answer?

What if there were an Aborignal country.. They would be seen as "stone-age" people, they wouldn't have an aggressive religion, would they be "priviledged"?

Not really but as an example, is what i think it's being alluded to.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope

originally posted by: dreamingawake
a reply to: ManFromEurope

See, all I could find to separate these countries from others was based on boring, low-level feelings

Then you didn't look far enough. Poverty, corruption, indoctrinated religion, war for oil, etc., rascism, all play a part.

"War for oil".. really? USA?

"indoctrinated religion".. Saudi-Arabia seems to be one of the worlds most profilent countries in this case.

"rascism"..


There are just not enough quantifiable points in this to have a benchmark which says confidently "this country.. yes! this country.. no!".

I not saying I don't agree with your question, I'm just "giving them a chance" that there's something more to this then as you mention low-level thinking.

originally posted by: dreamingawake
I not saying I don't agree with your question, I'm just "giving them a chance" that there's something more to this then as you mention low-level thinking.

This is the beautiful thing about this situation. It's forcing people to scrutinize and analyze Obama's decisions with far more ferocity than anyone would have done while he is in power.

I am genuinely looking forward to some of the answers proposed in this thread. Great question, OP!

a reply to: loam

In fact, this was a GOOD answer, thank you.

I just had to sit back and think about it. Seems that not only my limited abilities in the English language made my postings difficult to understand (and your answers difficult for me), but also that my old self seems to be a little bitter about Trump-Troopers and their perpetual moves to idolize anything their leader does - so I had to fight with myself (and calm down) to accept that there ARE answers beyond anything I predicted coming into this thread.

Therefore, I think that there are good answers, and this was one of them!

a reply to: ManFromEurope

Thank you.

Your command of English seems good enough as well.

With respect to the image of Trump as having Troopers, ask yourself whether that image is based on fact or one purposefully crafted for you by someone else.

Not everything is as it appears.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
And then I asked myself: "What could those countries, especially their governments DO to gain that priviledge back?"

All they have to do is burn all their oil.

Without any oil in the ground for other people to want, nobody will fund "moderate opposition fighters" to overthrow their governments, and peace will automatically return to their lands.

Once they appear to be peaceful once again, they can travel west.

The problem for some of these countries is it's hard to maintain records when state buildings become rubble, the records are gonna be pretty biased anyway and criminal checks don't count for a whole lot when the state arbitrarily convicts people they don't like.

Pretty much the only thing that can be done is to roll out a concise and effective vetting criteria for entry clearance on the American end.

I don't know why Brits are going so mad over this, it's not in the IDI but there is a de facto blacklist of countries where stricter criteria is applied, most of them are islamic nations or nations we're not friendly with.

a reply to: loam

Na, I saw enough people on this site who ADORE their leader.
I can't say it any other way, and I tried very hard to stay out of the very-very schmoozing threads. As soon as I saw some specific OPs I knew that there were only two things on their minds: Alt-right does all good, ctrl-left (as they called it) is the enemy. No traces of gray, just black and white.

There are Trump-Troopers on this board.

And I ignore them.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

"What could those countries, especially their governments DO to gain that priviledge back?"

The argument for the ban is that there is no (working) central government that makes it possible to actually wet the refugees. So I guess establishing a working government is what they are supposed to do.

But you raise a really good point - for this 'temporary' ban to be considered temporary, it SHOULD identify what needs to happen for it to be lifted.

Without that, the ban has little chance of accomplishing anything. Anything positive, at least.