Immigration Ban

#576
#576
hog88 said:
And if they rule the other way?
Click to expand...

I still have plenty of valid arguments against it. My position does not hinge on legality. It's ineffective and costly policy. It's big government. It's that simple.
 
#577
#577
n_huffhines said:
I can't wait until the supreme court rules that it's illegal. What straw will you grasp for then?

If your only defense of a policy is "it's legal" then you're not on firm ground.
Click to expand...

How is a temporary halt to immigration to review procedures illegal? I dont even see a "banned" country listed in the EO..

edit..see Syria ban..but that makes sense...and its only temporary. They can flee to Turkey.
 
#578
#578
rjd970 said:
Don't believe that to be true. All I said was that the appearance of conflict of interest is there and an argument can be made. An accusation was never leveled either way.

That is the way it was meant, anyway.
Click to expand...

My bad... You didn't accuse; others have.

Perhaps "questioned" would have been a better statement, while preserving my critique of newarkvol's ill-advised post.

:hi:
 
#580
#580
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
I like how non-believers (atheists) think they know more about the bible & preach it to the believers of the faith....we really take you serious on your knowledge of that.
Click to expand...

This is a very ironic statement considering the amount of Christain's on here who are supposed "experts" at interpreting the Quran.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#582
#582
FLVOL_79 said:
A pen and paper is cheap holmes.
Click to expand...

Forget about the cost of enforcing the ex O. Forget about the economic cost to our country as a whole. Just consider the direct cost of court proceedings that will follow. It's going to be substantial.
 
#583
#583
I'm tired of the notion that this is a nation "founded on the backs of immigrants" and one that needs to remain as such for all time.

The colonists that settled this land had and turned it into the United States of America to beat down a bunch of poorly-unified, interloping migrants in order to make damn certain who the king of the hill happened to be.

Immigration has been a tenet of American society for centuries, yes. But the new breed of immigrant isn't looking to assimilate, isn't trying to become one with the culture and fabric of our society. They're increasingly complacent to do as they feel and demand (with the help of myriad fools in NYC and other urban "utopias") that we augment our laws and our way of life to suit their needs.

And, ya know what? I don't blame them; we've been making it progressively easier for them to have their way, so of course they're going to try and have their way at every turn. The primary difference is that, unlike the colonists vs. native savages, there's no way that these people are going to win a fight and take over this land.

This 90-day moratorium on the given countries is great, but it has to be just the start or else the entire effort is for naught. We need to severely slash the visas and green cards we issue, revoke a number of those that we have already issued and institute a of permanent ban on immigration of individuals from "hot zones" that present a danger to American citizens. It's about more than our safety, it's about maintaining our American way of life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#584
#584
n_huffhines said:
So basically you're still saying you don't have a good response to their policy analysis?
Click to expand...

I have no response to their policy analysis because I didn't read it.

I respect that you are more concerned about the policy and without reading it, they may make fair points. I'm commenting on the legality of the order and I'm inclined to take whatever policy opinion they have with a grain of salt given they've botched their legal analysis.
 
#585
#585
FLVOL_79 said:
How is a temporary halt to immigration to review procedures illegal? I dont even see a "banned" country listed in the EO..

edit..see Syria ban..but that makes sense...and its only temporary. They can flee to Turkey.
Click to expand...

It's been established for 50 years that you can't discriminate against immigrants (but you can discriminate against refugees) based on nationality.

Golf's interpretation is that you can't have quotas based on nationality, but I don't think that he understands that 0 is a quota.
 
#586
#586
n_huffhines said:
Forget about the cost of enforcing the ex O. Forget about the economic cost to our country as a whole. Just consider the direct cost of court proceedings that will follow. It's going to be substantial.
Click to expand...

Well you can look at it this way..how much does 1 American life cost?

How many American lives would have been saved if an all out ban on any country using Islamic law as a foundation of their justice system would have been in place since 1979?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#588
#588
n_huffhines said:
Forget about the cost of enforcing the ex O. Forget about the economic cost to our country as a whole. Just consider the direct cost of court proceedings that will follow. It's going to be substantial.
Click to expand...

You believe that border enforcement = big government is duly noted
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#591
#591
Septic said:
Mary is widely believed to be 12-14 and Joseph was around 90 when they were hitched.

That s#it was normal back then, deal with it.
Click to expand...

NOT really comparable.

Aisha was 6 when married off to Mohammed. 9 when he had penetrating consumating sex when she was prepubescent, a child.

Mary, on the other hand, HAD reached the age where she marriageable; being that at 12 to 14, she was near to, or had begun her menstrual cycles. In many cultures even today, advent of menstruation, the menearche, is the biological standard. While some did live long lives comparable even to today, and people could hope for a long life like Joseph; 1st century harsh living realities drove a higher mortality rate somewhere +/- mid 30's. So a young woman of 14 was near to having lived 1/3 of the shorter lifetime many people could expect. Shorter lives drove a compressed timeline of when one was expected to accomplish major events like marriage and childbirth in their lives. Not long after the time of Christ, Jews fixed minimum marriagable age for girls at 12 and boys 13. Note that currently, Montana law allows, with parental consent, marriage on the 15th birthday.

Married at 6, sexually penetrated at 9.

vs.

Married at 13 or 14.
Not the same at all.
Not even close.
Deal with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#592
#592
FLVOL_79 said:
Well you can look at it this way..how much does 1 American life cost?
Click to expand...

About $8 million. No seriously, U.S. Office of Management and Budget puts the value at about $8M. An economist estimated that for about every $9 or so million the government takes away from the public, one person dies. So if this program costs $90M and saved 6 lives (a very generous projection), we'd actually be down a few lives.

Cost/benefit...there is no way this policy passes a cost/benefit analysis.

How many American lives would have been saved if an all out ban on any country using Islamic law as a foundation of their justice system would have been in place since 1979?
Click to expand...

Who can say? But this in no way relates to Trump's policy. He has singled out countries that haven't been much of a threat to us and he is favoring countries who have been a threat to us. If in 1979 we enacted Trump's policy, the Saudis still would have carried out 9/11.
 
#595
#595
n_huffhines said:
About $8 million. No seriously, U.S. Office of Management and Budget puts the value at about $8M. An economist estimated that for about every $9 or so million the government takes away from the public, one person dies. So if this program costs $90M and saved 6 lives (a very generous projection), we'd actually be down a few lives.

Cost/benefit...there is no way this policy passes a cost/benefit analysis.



Who can say? But this in no way relates to Trump's policy. He has singled out countries that haven't been much of a threat to us and he is favoring countries who have been a threat to us. If in 1979 we enacted Trump's policy, the Saudis still would have carried out 9/11.
Click to expand...

Like I said, the only country I saw mentioned in the EO (ctrl-F search for the win) was Syria, and it was only a temporary ban. Any other countries were supplied to him by DHS and DIA per the EO based on pretty much decades of state instability.

Also, I wasn't referencing Trumps EO, I don't think it goes far enough. A blanket ban on any country utilizing Islam in its justice system would have saved around 20,000 American lives at a minimum over 40 years. So in the hypothetical world of a price tag on a human life that's a $160,000,000,000 of life not taken by Islam.
 
#596
#596
n_huffhines said:
No, I don't. I'm for protecting the border.

I think big government approaches to protecting the border = big government
Click to expand...

So, and honest question, how does small government protect it?


Personally, I see a small government plan involving landmines hundreds of yards deep.
 
#597
#597
Orangedogsrule said:
NOT really comparable.

Aisha was 6 when married off to Mohammed. 9 when he had penetrating consumating sex when she was prepubescent, a child.

Mary, on the other hand, HAD reached the age where she marriageable; being that at 12 to 14, she was near to, or had begun her menstrual cycles. In many cultures even today, advent of menstruation, the menearche, is the biological standard. While some did live long lives comparable even to today, and people could hope for a long life like Joseph; 1st century harsh living realities drove a higher mortality rate somewhere +/- mid 30's. So a young woman of 14 was near to having lived 1/3 of the shorter lifetime many people could expect. Shorter lives drove a compressed timeline of when one was expected to accomplish major events like marriage and childbirth in their lives. Not long after the time of Christ, Jews fixed minimum marriagable age for girls at 12 and boys 13. Note that currently, Montana law allows, with parental consent, marriage on the 15th birthday.

Married at 6, sexually penetrated at 9.

vs.

Married at 13 or 14.
Not the same at all.
Not even close.
Deal with it.
Click to expand...

Hey man, what ever helps you rationalize it. I'm not judging you, if 12-14 is cool in your book - that's your thing.
 
#598
#598
FLVOL_79 said:
So, and honest question, how does small government protect it?

Personally, I see a small government plan involving landmines hundreds of yards deep.
Click to expand...

Bring our troops home, eliminate the cost of interventionism, and use those troops to actually defend our border.
 
#599
#599
http%3A%2F%2Fcom.ft.imagepublish.prod-us.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fa828f5b4-e3e5-11e6-8405-9e5580d6e5fb
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top