Retired Marine's message about travel ban goes viral

a reply to: Sillyolme

Pretty sure were talking immigration, not religious freedom. The constitution doesn't apply to non citizens. Figured that was fairly obvious

a reply to: Doctor Smith

As a principled libertarian, I'm opposed to the idea of banning entire groups of people based on generalizations.

But a part of me does understand that we're dealing with a difficult reality.

Not sure how to handle this bizarre situation.

On a separate note, I dont know that I can blame Iraqis for disliking Americans. We installed a dictator, then attacked and occupied their nation twice with a sustained bombing campaign right up to current day.

Pretty sure I'd hate anyone or any country that did that to the United States.

a reply to: dragonridr

I also have no doubt there exist "good" Muslims who mean us no harm. I work with several who I have been friends with for almost 20 years. However, considering the consequences if we misjudge them, I feel we do not owe them the benefit of the doubt and must allow them unrestricted travel to our country. I also do not feel that we as a nation, have an overriding moral obligation to accept them into our society.
Just my viewpoint on the matter.
Side note: The Muslims I work with are "westernized", in that they drink alcohol, eat pork, watch porn....ect and still go to mosque every Friday.

Ex or current Military man, I'm sure he's not biased n the slightest...

a reply to: Taggart

whether he's ex or current military doesn't make his points any less truthful

I guess we're blessed that the Latin-folk don't hate us?

We got what they want- a better quality of life; freedom to beer-belch 'Donald Trump' out-loud in public if that's what we're into.

Imagine if Latinos hated us because we belch out-loud in public?

I suppose we're blessed that we didn't conduct bombing campaigns in Mexico's oil-fields?

Cause and effect.
Now we know why not to bomb people for their resources to survive, they need it for their own use.

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Aaargh another video with no summary. I cant watch this stuff at work.

Reddit? Facebook? ATS? FFS.

Doesn't have 6 minutes to spare watching a video, but all the time in the world to complain.

originally posted by: Outlier13
Our vetting processes are lacking. Terrorists understand how to circumvent our obsolete vetting process. Your president Donald J. Trump wants to put a temporary travel ban on a very specific set of people traveling from known terrorist growth countries and you somehow conflate this with it being a violation of "the very foundations this country is based on"?

Prove it.

I've seen this argument presented many times. But no one has ever suggested how our vetting process is lacking. The US has one of the most strict vetting processes on the planet. It's so strict that we don't even let our informants from Iraq and Afghanistan come over when their lives are in danger, we tell them to go away as thanks for saving our own peoples lives.

What part exactly are we supposed to clamp down on?

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Outlier13
Our vetting processes are lacking. Terrorists understand how to circumvent our obsolete vetting process. Your president Donald J. Trump wants to put a temporary travel ban on a very specific set of people traveling from known terrorist growth countries and you somehow conflate this with it being a violation of "the very foundations this country is based on"?

Prove it.

I've seen this argument presented many times. But no one has ever suggested how our vetting process is lacking. The US has one of the most strict vetting processes on the planet. It's so strict that we don't even let our informants from Iraq and Afghanistan come over when their lives are in danger, we tell them to go away as thanks for saving our own peoples lives.

What part exactly are we supposed to clamp down on?

Not only has our vetting process been widely criticized by many but specifically by the Director of the FBI - James Comey made a statement in 2015 that "our vetting procedures for Syrian refugees are lacking". Go ahead...you can look that one up yourself. He also said that many of the Syrian refugees we will let in cannot be vetted. Yes, you read that right. We cannot vet them yet we are going to let them in. Of course this was under Obama. Now that is changing.

You should also educate yourself on exactly what our vetting procedures are for refugees. That's what we are talking about here. Refugees...not immigrants.

The process for vetting a Syrian refugee is bio metrics and interviews. Go educate yourself on bio metrics data collection then come back and tell me if any or all of the information we attempt to collect can be easily falsified or even verified. Because it can be falsified and it cannot be verified. We have become really good at vetting Iraqi refugees because we have spent a ton of time there. Not so much with Syria. Our vetting process is lacking...severely. We have little to no information on Syrians. Therefore we cannot properly vet who someone claims to be.

What Trump is proposing. The operative word here is "temporary". He is proposing a temporary travel ban on all refugee admissions for 90 days and a 120 day ban on refugees specially from countries who willfully support terrorism. More specifically terrorism directed at the US.

For you or anyone else to conflate this process of security with it somehow going against our US Constitution is simple and plain ignorance. Willful ignorance.

The OP is a very simple message you are clearly missing.

Why would you invite people who hate you and what you stand for into our country? Especially without properly vetting them first? But before you do that it might be a really good idea to make sure your vetting process is as air tight as possible. When the Director of the FBI makes a public statement that our refugee vetting processes are lacking you might want to listen.

So yeah. We need to "clamp down" on the process.

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Aaargh another video with no summary. I cant watch this stuff at work.

Reddit? Facebook? ATS? FFS.

Doesn't have 6 minutes to spare watching a video, but all the time in the world to complain.

I've got all the time in the world - just no sound.

Great assumption Doctor Smith, you'll go far.

a reply to: swedy13

Oh the travel ban that tries to keep muslims out isn't about religion?
My bad...SMH

a reply to: Outlier13

The ban is to get other procedures in place, but what procedures exactly are we supposed to get in place? Information doesn't just appear out of nowhere. If someone doesn't show up on one of our watchlists, when we put the information they do give us into the database to check... exactly what are we supposed to do?

Also, at this point the bans are pretty much irrelevant. It was one of the first things Trump tried to do, and we're less than a month out from when those bans would have stopped. So far all indications are that they still don't have anything else in place.

a reply to: badw0lf

He was insane and a danger to children. You're not defending koresh are you?

a reply to: Sillyolme

So you 're saying muslims only come from countries that sponsor terrorism, or that there are no muslims outside of those countries???

Because you do relies that the travel ban only affected countries that sponsor terrorism?

a reply to: LockNLoad

Stop. Chump promised he was going to ban Muslims. Giuliani promised to find him a legal way to do it.
No judge is going to pass this because they are all aware of that conversation.
He can forget it.

Which funny enough it appears he has done...

Next repeal and replace Obama care...
Oh wait...

a reply to: Sillyolme

I'm just responding to your statements that there is a religious ban on muslims, and I pointed out that you are wrong.

So you are operating on misinformation, or are purposefully making false statements.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Obviously not. Look at all the Muslim countries that weren't banned...

a reply to: Doctor Smith

He is right. But the "political correctness" that the left is naively embracing in many western nations will ultimately be our downfall. The only people to blame will be those on the left who are too naive to understand what is going on.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Well, these judges are only trying to uphold the very foundations this country is based on but hey, yeah DC politicians and their wealthy donors are doing all they can chip away and destroy said foundation so why not go all the way?

Make America Great Again!

Could you show us where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that people, many of which are extremists, should be allowed into a country when the goal of many of these people is to impose Shari'a in the U.S. and force everyone to submit to Allah?

When a group of people have no intention to assimilate into a country and culture they want to go to, those people are up to no good. More so when many of these people come from areas where they still stone women to death, and men for even the "possibility" that there was extra-marital sexual relations. Women can get stoned to death if they are married and the husband even thinks she lusts for another man, even when it is not true. They still stone to death and hang people for being homosexual, LBGT, etc.

How, how in the world is such culture good for the U.S.?

We saw what happened in Germany, and is still happening, alongside other European nations who opened their doors blindly to refugees from areas in the Middle East where Muslim extremism rules.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So where's the vetting policy? The ban was always meant to be temporary, and if it had passed, would have fewer than 30 days remaining on it. It was meant to coincide with building better systems, but one wasn't reliant on the other.

Where's that extreme vetting system? It should be mostly ready by now.