gbaji wrote:
Samira wrote:
No, he actually called out Christians as having been treated "very terribly" or some such, even though they have in fact enjoyed some protection under Assad, and said that allowing them in would be prioritized. Over whom else but Muslims?
I think this is a case where political correctness makes real world decision making more difficult than it should be. We're left in the astounding situation where we know that the terrorists coming from the set of nations in question are all operating under a radical version of Islam, yet we're not allowed to make the most obvious first pass selection based on "are you a Muslim from <country on list>" when making vetting decisions for visas, immigration, or refugee status. Because.... well... it's just "wrong". Or something.
I know it's horribly un-PC, but one of the defining characteristics of being a radical Islamic terrorist is being a follower of Islam. It's not like anyone's proposing loading everyone who's Muslim into cargo cars and shipping them off to detention centers or anything. Focusing your vetting attention on people who are Islamic when looking for radical members of that religion isn't exactly a silly way to go about this. What's silly is wasting vetting efforts on people who can't possibly be members of said terrorist organizations, but we feel like we have to anyway so as not to appear to be profiling or whatever.
And so we use some silly linguistic tap dance to pretend we're not actually doing exactly what we are doing. Just like always.
Um.. the issue stems from the broad language used and lack of, apparently, any input from stakeholders. Customs officers can already do a lot if they are so inclined. ****, they held my sibling at Ohare and she had a green card ( and that was under Obama's reign of terror btw ). The order seems to be giving them a practical carte blanche to a host of enforcement agencies, which is, for ANY enforcement unit, close to full blown retarded ( absolute power and all that ). That is why it is being opposed. No sane individual opposes it, because it hurts someone's feelings.
The fact that you seem to want to portray it as such worries me a little.
Everything else appears to be an amusing attempt at distraction. This is not a ban! Don't call it that. It is merely a temporary travel restriction. Look here! We got you a new supreme court nominee.
As for vetting, it is yet another distraction, as many a legal alien will tell you, since actual vetting process is a *****. I know, because I remember the hoops I had to jump through -- and that was before 9/11.
tldr - this eo is bs and a simple love letter to base; i am not sure why u even try to defend it
Edited, Feb 2nd 2017 1:08am by angrymnk