“The present controversy involving Iranian students in the United States lies in the field of our country’s foreign affairs and implicates matters over which the president has direct constitutional authority.”More directly related to the current situation referred to by Trump’s idea, a concurring opinion in the decision made this point:
“Distinctions on the basis of nationality may be drawn in the immigration field by the Congress or the executive. So long as such distinctions are not wholly irrational, they must be sustained.”It is important to note that there is no precedent for a religious litmus test, just a national one.
***
The congress is considering legislation that would temporarily halt visas from 'high-risk' countries.
AllenS emails...
44 comments:
Good catch. Media sure to ignore. Doesn't fit the narrative.
In other words both Democrats and Republicans in Congress are moving in Trump's direction while simultaneously doing the usual Trump's a bigot smear job.
Isn't always the brown M&M's?
Isn't the MM analogy true of all things? There are poison MMs present is all groups. A certain number of car trips are deadly. A few heads of lettuces have Salmonella, Some guns end up in the hands of poison people. It's just an expression that says there are risks - sometimes deadly to all things. We don't want to ban everything that has a risk.
The thing is that you take reasonable precautions and do your best to minimize the risks, but if we just completely cower from something that has risks we become paralyzed by fear.
As Americans, and some of us as Christians, we have certain values beyond fear and self preservation at all costs. Those values require us to be smarter, work harder, and yes to take some risks that those without our values might pass up for the easier, safer road. We need tough thorough vetting with intelligent criteria, not cowardly blanket exclusions of one of the world largest religions because a few of them want to terrorize us. We can do plenty to make immigration safer without alienating Muslims that have been good Americans, including thousands of our bravest serving in our military, or who have been loyal Americans, some for generations, or those in other nations who we need to not see us as the enemy.
Yes Trouper, as you said, I want to be better. I want my country to be better, smarter, braver. Not suckers, but neither cowards boarding up the doors because a couple ISIS inspired assholes challenged us. We shouldn't go down that easy.
I said immediately yesterday that Trump went too far, and would walk it back. He did just that within minutes by limiting his remarks to immigrants, not citizens. He will define it down more in the coming days. Some said it was just a negotiating position, but in an election, the step down ending compromise is simply voting for someone else. Unfortunately, Clinton and others have already used this to characterize the whole Republican field as holding this unrealistic and reactionary "negotiating position" as their true character. Now she can define herself as tougher than Obama, but not crazy like Trump. That's the sweet spot, she never should have been given a door to. It was an unforced error.
A coward is a guy who doesn't want to invite a pyromaniac into his house. To prove you are not a coward you should hand him a back of matches and go into the other room.
Got it.
You think it is an error because you support unlimited immigration. Many think what he is proposing is a sound policy. Halting unlimited immigration until screening is improved is not the holocaust despite how the politically correct media tries to sell it.
Who is the pyromaniac? Yes, if you board up the doors and don't let anyone in who ever used a match - because some pyros use matches - then, yes, you are a coward. Would you respect that guy?
Clearly, I don't support unlimited immigration as is clear from everything I write about it, but I realize mis-characterizing me helps you with your fear. Stop shaking for a minute - your spilling your hot coco.
It's like this bags. I have a store. I let in the general public. But if a homeless drunk guy tries to come in I throw him out.
A better example are people who shop lift. You know who are the worst shoplifter's? Pre-teen girls. When one comes in I follow them around and watch that they don't steal the jewelry I have set out. I profile them.
It's that simple. It is just common sense.
If I mischaracterized your position I apologize. But you would concede that the media, Hillary, Obama and the Democrats support unlimited immigration. Along with a big percentage of the Chamber of Commerce types in the Republican Party.
Trump is just staking out a position at the other extreme. The solution is somewhere in the middle.
Obama is the other extreme, which leaves somewhere in the middle starting to look like Hillary. Even if he walks it back more, in the campaign Hillary will be saying: see if this guy was President he wouldn't have to come back to the right position, he would just charge ahead with the dumb policy. He's gonna be seen as coming back to her position. I repeat: this is not a negotiation. The voters don't have to make a deal with him. They have options. You don't come in quoting high to the customer when there is competition already more reasonable.
I really wish Trump was not substituting boldness for smart leadership. He's smart and capable in the way that Kim Kardashian is. The media slops it up, and they both get rich on great ratings from a relatively small percentage of the public, but neither can get 51% to respect them. I still envy that, but I want more from a President. He's smart enough to do a lot better, but he's following his successful instincts from a different arena.
It is easy to dismiss Trump as Kim Kardashian. That is the elitist view. They say there is no way he will win. That nobody they know will ever vote for him. Let's see how that goes.
Isn't the MM analogy true of all things? There are poison MMs present is all groups. A certain number of car trips are deadly. A few heads of lettuces have Salmonella, Some guns end up in the hands of poison people. It's just an expression that says there are risks - sometimes deadly to all things. We don't want to ban everything that has a risk.
@ Bago
Yes. Everything has risk. Risk and reward was the fundamental basis of my (now retired) business as a financial advisor, planner and investment broker.
However, in your examples we can chose to avoid the risk. Don't take a car trip. Don't eat salads. In my biz, you can avoid the risk and skip the reward by putting your money under the mattress. Your choice :-)
The RISK that the government wants to foist on us, by allowing un-examined Muslims and illegal aliens who are also un-examined and unknown to flood into our Country and be inserted without oversight of any kind into our communities..... is NOT avoidable. We don't get a choice in avoiding the risk. The risk that the hordes of people flooding into our country will contain some poison pills/terrorists/criminals is not one that we are choosing to make. The poison pill is hidden in the salad and we are being forced to eat the salad whether we want to or not.
As to the Risk vs Reward. Taking a risk when there is a reward or positive outcome is a logical thing to do. It was my job to help my clients assess those risks and asses the possible reward, decide how much risk they can tolerate and which way to act.
Tell me what is the "reward" that would make us, the American public, willing to take the risk of allowing continued immigration of people from countries that HATE us and want us dead. I don't see the "reward" being worth the risk and I don't think that the American people are foolish enough to jump on this risk/reward bandwagon.
What is the positive outcome of shoving the poisoned salad onto our plates?
We aren't suicidal
The Establishment duopoly (I stole duopoly from Troop) will tell you that the reward for admitting murderous Muslims will keep America on track to fulfill its destiny -- to be the first Universal Nation. And the Establishment will say that with a straight face. That's how madly destructive the Establishment is.
Poorly written but brilliant as always! :^/
"What is the positive outcome of shoving the poisoned salad onto our plates?"
You eat salad, even though it might have a small chance of being poison. Is salad important? No, but the risk is so small that it would be neurotic to avoid it. The benefit is nonessential, but it's still worth it. At least to me.
I stated above what the benefits are of not following Trump's policy. It alienates people who are important to us. They are Muslims who happen to be American citizens, military and police risking their lives, they are allies and millions abroad who either support us now or who can be pushed either way depending on how they see us as friend or foe.
I don't know why people see anyone who disagrees with the scope of Trump's idea as automatically favoring completely open immigration. I said over and over, and most people feel just the opposite: that there should be plenty of vetting, just not lazy counterproductive policy that throws friends and enemies into the same basket just because of their religion. That's exactly what the Left does on a whole range of issues, and it makes us look scared, and unreliable as an ally. We should be better and smarter. The damage done to our relationships with good Muslims will hurt us more than the benefits of stopping a few bad ones from getting in. They are already in anyway, and 7 of the nine terrorists in Paris were European citizens.
Trump should have never said it, even if he believed it. It hurts his candidacy, the chances of all the Republicans, and it hurts our foreign policy. Even we adopted such a policy, it never should be announced, but Trump did it for himself, because that's what he cares about most. He didn't care about the damage it might do. He just wanted those ratings, and he got em.
Elitist? Trooper, cut the shit. There is nothing obvious or easy about this decision.
Conservative Voter has to choose between (1) establishment/RINO/MOR Republican or (2) Trump. (Unless the Cruz surge continues and expands, of course.) Neither is conservative, both serve themselves first and the people second, and both have a tendency to make statements (purposefully or not) which distract from the Progressive Circus of Sordidness.
1. GOPe/RINO candidate is less of a general election risk but will maintain the establishment status quo, serving the cronies first and regular people second (amnesty, Obamacare, etc.), and be the clean up crew behind the Obama parade. There's a lot of unicorn shit and rainbow detritus to clean up. The GOP will take all the blame for the pain resulting from failed Obama policies and this president will probably be replaced in the next presidential election. (But by whom? A conservative third party candidate? FINALLY? Or yet another BLObama clone?)
2. Trump is a compelling and charismatic candidate, gets people talking and turns out a percentage of the base that would otherwise stay home and energizes other aspects of the general electorate. Which is great but he is not conservative, historically OTR holds very progressive positions and defaults to government as a solution. He is a much bigger risk in the general election (the Dems and the GOPe and the media will be against him) and there is no guarantee whatsoever about how he will govern when he is in office. These statements he makes are meant to garner attention and outrage and school people on reality. Art of the deal, indeed, but what's he actually going to do in office? No way to tell. He is truly the GOP mirror of Obama. And that worked out so well for the Dems. And America.
So it is more important to not offend Muslims than to protect our country? That a dozen or so people killed because they went to a Christmas party are just the price we have to pay to not be meanies. To not be called cowards or racists.
I mean that is Obama's policy and if that is what you want than you should vote for him and Hillary.
Because the most important thing is how these wonderful Muslim allies feel about things. Especially the Saudi's.
The thing is there are a whole lot of people who think this is wrongheaded in the extreme. That you can't trust Obama to vet Muslims. He is not even complying with Court orders now about immigration. The only answer is to put a halt to it until a new administration comes in or specific guidelines are created by Congress.
But calling for that makes you Hitler.
Of course the way to convince Trump skeptics that they are wrong is to tell them that they are cowards and bad conservatives. Oh and elitists. Don't forget elitist.
Lawnboy tactics are a douchebag move.
I agree with you Amartel. There is no telling what Trump will do. I know what Bush or Kasich or Rubio or Christie will do. That just doesn't work for me. We have to upset the applecart.
There are many, many things that I don't agree with Trump about. But he is right on the big things. Immigration and terror. That is enough for me.
And you are kidding yourself if you don't think the contempt that a lot of people have for Trump is elitist in nature. They won't stop and discuss what he is saying. They just call him Kim Kardashian.
Also strawman rhetoric.
Typical Obamafan tactic.
If he underperforms in office, does half what he says he'll do, Trump will still be a head and shoulders improvement on a RINO or Dem. Do I expect Calvin Coolidge? Unfortunately not. But that ship has sailed, never to return. A lean republic with the maximum freedom allowable commensurate with a lawful society is in the rearview mirror, speeding away.
If I was using Lawnboy tactics I would not call people against Trump cowards or bad conservatives. I don't think Trump is a conservative. Many conservatives who support him know he is not a conservative. That is why "exposing" his prior liberal positions doesn't stop people from supporting him. I am a conservative who supports Trump with no illusions.
It is the people who want to denigrate Trump who call his supporters cowards or reality show morons. If you don't think that is elitist....well I don't know what to tell you.
How 'bout them mixed metaphors?!
If I wanted to use Lawnboy tactics I would call the people attacking Trump and his efforts to secure our homeland traitors. Quislings. Judenrat. Collaborators.
But that would be wrong.
What sort of idiocracy do we want to live in?
That is the question.
Yes. I agree.
You already know what the Clintons would do. You already know what Bush and his ilk would do.
Why not try something completely different.
Trump might be bad but he can't be worse.
If it's down to Trump v. Clinton, I have always said my vote goes to Trump. No question.
The GOPe and their tactics are always making the primary decision increasingly easy for me. Then Trump comes bigfooting through and makes it difficult again.
I admit to being a huge snob/elitist about cults, especially personality cults. Nothing good comes out of that.
Trump could easily beat Hillary if he just stopped doing whatever it takes to stay in the news. He's confusing coverage for agreement and popularity. You know that he thinks about it everyday, and decides to say something outrageous to get the front page. That works fine for ratings on a TV show, or celebrity branding, but this is politics. I am saying right up front that I will not view the upcoming Trump sex tape, but let me know if Trooper is in it? Lets hope it's not High Definition.
Look. I don't want to pick a fight with Bagho. We are pretty much in agreement, I think, but with nuanced differences. I appreciate that we can disagree without getting personal or disrespectful. I respect his opinion and his right to have a different one than mine....wrong as it is....kidding :-)
most people feel just the opposite: that there should be plenty of vetting, just not lazy counterproductive policy that throws friends and enemies into the same basket just because of their religion. Agree. We need to sort this out. However, the only way to do this is to START doing it and not be afraid to hurt someone's feelings. Stopping what we are doing and regrouping, which is what Trump has said (basically) is the prudent thing to do.
The issue as I see it is that there is much to much risk in allowing immigration to continue as it is. No accountability. Illegal people flooding the country. No follow through on those who are coming in on visas. No screening of those who are coming from countries that are known to be terrorist supporters and terrorist training grounds.
The apologist who say we shouldn't take measures against the importation of Muslim extremists because we might offend moderate Muslims are missing the point. It isn't about their feelings. This is about the safety of the American public, and that can include the moderate Muslims as well.
The reward for allowing unfettered immigration is not on the side of the American public. The duopoly, or the entrenched elites, the Chamber of Commerce types see the reward for themselves in a couple of ways. 1. reduced labor costs and higher profit margins 2. importing uneducated lofo voters who will vote Democrat and keep them in power.
However, for the American public in general there are no rewards. Degraded and bankrupt education system. Breaking of our social welfare programs by people who are grabbing all the hand outs they can and who have never paid in and probably never will. Cultural suicide. Health risks from third world diseases. More poverty imported from third world nations. Rise in crime. Rise in terrorism. Ghettoization of the immigrants by their own choice when they refuse to live by OUR rules and laws. Sharia is unacceptable in this country and they need to abandon it or don't come here. If you immigrate to America you need to become part of the country and not stand separate.
If someone wants to logically tell me what the benefits and payoffs to the American Public are by allowing this immigration invasion to continue..I'll listen.
We are less safe and worse off economically by this unfettered, un-vetted, secret placement system of immigration.
It would be a different story if there were positives for the general public. There is not and WE know it. The positives are all for the fascist oligarchs. We are collateral damage in their quest for wealth and power.
Trump speaks truth. He may not speak as eloquently as some would like, but it is TRUTH. Immigration, as we are doing it now, is dangerous, destructive and degrading our country.
From my perspective out here in plaid flannel fly over country....it is about time someone spoke up instead of playing the pussy footing political correct game, where we all politely ignore the elephant in the room and the huge pile of shit it is leaving in the corner.
Something else to consider.
There is a process called denaturalization which strips a naturalized American of his citizenship. One of the reasons is membership in an organization deemed inimical to the United States.
I know The Donald has backed away from that, but maybe he should not have.
" Immigration, as we are doing it now, is dangerous, destructive and degrading our country."
Agreed, but announcing a policy idea that scares our friends more than our enemies just for show and attention is not responsible or smart. This is important stuff, and there are repercussions to any policy, or in this case, just announcing a potential one. I don't see why we need to make enemies when we can get it done and keep our friends and allies on board. All cost - no benefit to us. He could have announced a smarter idea, but as I said it was for his benefit not ours, and I think even that backfired. An opportunity to show real leadership and get the same result was blown. It's not like any of his supporters would have cared if he used a little tact.
I have made my points about all this ad nauseum. That's latin for hangover. I'll give it a rest. I don't want to step on Ritmo's style.
bagoh20 said...
Agreed, but announcing a policy idea that scares our friends more than our enemies just for show and attention is not responsible or smart
Something to consider - if an idea is reasonable and necessary, but it supposedly scares people said to be our friends, are they really our friends?
We're not racist, we're so fine, we're so fine we blow our mind, yo, Ricki.
*key changeI* but,
Don't ask me what I think of you, might not give the answer that you want me to. *electric guitar rift*
It's a conflict. There's that schizophrenia again.
And I look back at the Muslims that I do know. Turns out they're black. And I see what the religion has done for them. How it has shielded them. How it forms the basis of solid and lasting family relationships. And I look at the personal interaction we had, the warmth and the trust that they gave me in those interactions. Real likability, real trust, even with the cultural gulfs, the interaction that occurred was intimate, with a touch of granted patrimony, friendly, and genuine in each case.
Nothing that I read and see through media fits. Precisely as the race thing, nothing matches my direct experience, my primary source.
It was a amazing tuning into a Christian channel early this morning discussing this issue. The speaker in a group related the story of a town with high Muslim immigration. The town was proud of their openness. Proud of their multicultural expressions of acceptance. Muslims gained full majority on town council, every position, once attained the leader advised non Muslims to move out. The guy imitating the woman telling him, putting on a woman's voice saying, "I don't understand. We were close friends all these years. Now that was funny, but nobody laughed. Then a complete reversal." He said that she told was told Sharia was the aim. And even though it might not be successful that is the aim for that town.
And I'm sitting there thinking, Yeah, so happy to see you arrive at realization better late then never, eh? It took that for it to become existential, it took that to overcome your overweening sense of Christian morality, generosity, good Samaritan self image, and all the rest of your angelic self-regard. Angels can be bastards, you know. It takes that for you to review passages on taking up swords. Now, were are the proper Christian crusaders picking up where their progenitors left off?
I'm a terrible Christian. From my POV just another club, one built around a fantastic body of work with a very good deal of remarkable and visible lasting results, but a club.
And right after that prayer to open the Senate, public prayers always embarrassing, and I'm all, "separationofchurchandstate! separationofchurchandstate! separationofchurchandstate! separationofchurchandstate! separationofchurchandstate! separationofchurchandstate!" to start the day.
Yes, we are nothing if not schizophrenic.
I'm waiting for Trump to say close immigration to Turkey until they return Hagia Sophia to Christians, to create out of air an issue that needn't exist just to see exploding heads everywhere, because I am offended by that place being a mosque with all that backward squiggly writing scribbled all over the place on signs like a cut rate motel. I'm for a bit of triumphalism. I'm for taking down the signs and having a wee on somebody else's sacred writings and relics. For I am a terrible Christian.
"Something to consider - if an idea is reasonable and necessary, but it supposedly scares people said to be our friends, are they really our friends?"
It's neither reasonable nor necessary. It just feeds passions, and Trump's brand. I think you too would have a change of heart if the government was to start banning people like you from your own country based on your religion, with no end in sight - Trump says it's temporary, but when is the war on terror gonna be over? I think if the government started doing that you might get a little concerned, a little less than cooperative with authorities, maybe start to question your own identity as an American? It's dividing us, not them.
Trump is supposed to go to Israel to meet Bebe, and now most there don't want him to come. Too incendiary, and they have good reason to worry about such things. Are the Jews our friends?
He's was planning on visiting Jordan's King Abdullah too. That's now been cancelled too. He can't risk the insulting his whole country.
That's just in the first day, over a policy that doesn't even exist, and likely won't. How many friends and allies will have to distance themselves from us to avoid pissing off their own people. We are not the only people who can get their pride insulted.
What Carter did was exclusively against one nation which we were in conflict with, not half the damned world. Like I said, big cost - no benefit.
And my balls have not atrophied. They're just resting.
How is it that an Arab nation, Saudi Arabia, can make economic warfare on the whole world, which is what they're doing now by selling their oil at below production cost, thereby driving American producers and Russian producers into the ground, with the intent to raise the cost of oil five or even ten times its present level once they've reestablished their near-monopoly, how come that gets barely a reaction from the "International Community," while Trump's call to put a temporary freeze on Muslim immigration till we've "sorted this thing out" to use his words, is greeted as the outrage to end all outrages?
There's one thing more: if the Mets sign Zobrist all will be well. Thank you.
Post a Comment