Happy Inauguration Day Eve!!

[Rich Z]

I don't care about his intentions. I care about what he does.

I rest my case...

 

[Rich Z]

Liberal head implosion warning!!!

 

[Distaff]

No problem here with the so-called ban. This country belongs to the people legally here as citizens, not any potential refugees (if you want to call them that). Anyone who prefers more liberal laws, can move to Sweden, and see for themselves how Sharia works out for them.

 

[Nanci]

I don't want sharia here. If people want that sort of law, government, then they should stay in a country that supports it, not come here and try to weasel it in. How well is that working for England? If they want freedom, and are fleeing terrorism/violence, don't expect to bring that crap here.

Also, sick of hearing that Trump made the list of countries that are affected. That list was already in place.

Also- check out the background of the leader of the women's march. Puppets much???

 

[OregonSnake]

What's the big deal about letting in refugees? They're homeless, displaced, and in a horrible situation. The vast majority of refugees are victims of a war they did not ask for. If America was war torn, I'd assume you'd want other countries to let you in if you had no other place to go.

Plus, America was built by immigration. You can not like that, but unless you're Native American, you weren't here first.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[OregonSnake]

Distaff: What on earth would you call them but refugees?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rich Z]

What's the big deal about letting in refugees? They're homeless, displaced, and in a horrible situation. The vast majority of refugees are victims of a war they did not ask for. If America was war torn, I'd assume you'd want other countries to let you in if you had no other place to go.

Plus, America was built by immigration. You can not like that, but unless you're Native American, you weren't here first.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The "big deal" as I understand it is that the "refugees" are coming in from countries with a high likelihood of Islamic terrorists being among the immigrants. Documentation on those refugees is pretty much non-existent, which means there would be no way to get a positive ID on those persons being allowed onto American soil. This will be a perfect opportunity for terrorist cells to become established all throughout the USA by giving ALL of those people a free pass to come here without any sort of identification. Quite frankly, that just sounds stupid and suicidal to me.

What Trump is demanding is that immigration of such refugees halts completely until some effective means is developed to positively ID those persons in an effort to weed out known and suspected terrorists from those people who truly need refuge. Personally, I think this is VERY rational and consistent with the job that a REAL president of the USA should perform. PROTECT OUR PEOPLE AND OUR BORDERS. If anyone thinks that terrorists would not take advantage of the confusion and the chaos there in order to infiltrate the USA, well, I hope you get over your naivete sooner rather than later. Certainly no one in their right mind would suggest that the USA throw open the doors to terrorists, would they? Well, push come to shove, that is exactly what is being asked of the USA.

So under the above circumstances, what would you suggest as a solution? Let all those people in FIRST, and then try to sort them out? "Please, all terrorists, please raise your hands."

And no, the type of immigration now from those mideast countries, is nothing at all like immigration has historically been. The risks are greater, so the defenses and restrictions have to likewise match that risk.

IMHO.

 

[Nanci]

What's the big deal about letting in refugees?

Speaking for myself, it's not the refugees that are not wanted. It's the terrorists, criminals, troublemakers in general, but particularly terrorists that try to slide in as refugees.

Just follow legal channels, that's all anyone is asking. Everyone should be screened.

I might want to move to Australia. I probably wouldn't pass their immigration policy. So does that give me the right to go there on vacation and just not leave? No.

 

[Nova_C]

Trump's EO revoked people's visas. Which means they had been screened, and approved for entry. Many had been living in the US for quite some time and had their green cards. People who had been vetted, investigated, and approved were turned away.

The EO came down so fast that people who boarded flights without any knowledge that it even existed, and were detained at customs, are now banned from entry to the US for five years for 'trying to enter on invalid visas'? They had done what you asked - jumped through all the hoops for legal entry. And now they're banned from the country for five years for following all the rules.

This is Trump's America:
https://twitter.com/barrytgoldberg/status/826040518060699650/photo/1

A nation so afraid that five year olds are restrained and cuffed.

This is what America is supposed to be:
https://twitter.com/GideonTurk/status/826277507741646848/photo/1

 

[Rich Z]

 

[Rich Z]

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
January 27, 2017
EXECUTIVE ORDER: PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES

EXECUTIVE ORDER

- - - - - - -

Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Purpose. The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.

Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.

In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.

Sec. 3. Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President a report on the results of the review described in subsection (a) of this section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security's determination of the information needed for adjudications and a list of countries that do not provide adequate information, within 30 days of the date of this order. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a copy of the report to the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence.

(c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).

(d) Immediately upon receipt of the report described in subsection (b) of this section regarding the information needed for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request all foreign governments that do not supply such information to start providing such information regarding their nationals within 60 days of notification.

(e) After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this section until compliance occurs.

(f) At any point after submitting the list described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security may submit to the President the names of any additional countries recommended for similar treatment.

(g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.

(h) The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall submit to the President a joint report on the progress in implementing this order within 30 days of the date of this order, a second report within 60 days of the date of this order, a third report within 90 days of the date of this order, and a fourth report within 120 days of the date of this order.

Sec. 4. Implementing Uniform Screening Standards for All Immigration Programs. (a) The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall implement a program, as part of the adjudication process for immigration benefits, to identify individuals seeking to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of causing harm subsequent to their admission. This program will include the development of a uniform screening standard and procedure, such as in-person interviews; a database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended application forms that include questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to ensure that the applicant is who the applicant claims to be; a process to evaluate the applicant's likelihood of becoming a positively contributing member of society and the applicant's ability to make contributions to the national interest; and a mechanism to assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to commit criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of this directive within 60 days of the date of this order, a second report within 100 days of the date of this order, and a third report within 200 days of the date of this order.

Sec. 5. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days. During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application and adjudication process to determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additional procedures. Refugee applicants who are already in the USRAP process may be admitted upon the initiation and completion of these revised procedures. Upon the date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only for nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.

(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.

(c) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.

(d) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions would be in the national interest.

(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest -- including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.

(f) The Secretary of State shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of the directive in subsection (b) of this section regarding prioritization of claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution within 100 days of the date of this order and shall submit a second report within 200 days of the date of this order.

(g) It is the policy of the executive branch that, to the extent permitted by law and as practicable, State and local jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining the placement or settlement in their jurisdictions of aliens eligible to be admitted to the United States as refugees. To that end, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall examine existing law to determine the extent to which, consistent with applicable law, State and local jurisdictions may have greater involvement in the process of determining the placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and shall devise a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement.

Sec. 6. Rescission of Exercise of Authority Relating to the Terrorism Grounds of Inadmissibility. The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the Attorney General, consider rescinding the exercises of authority in section 212 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182, relating to the terrorism grounds of inadmissibility, as well as any related implementing memoranda.

Sec. 7. Expedited Completion of the Biometric Entry-Exit Tracking System. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking system for all travelers to the United States, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President periodic reports on the progress of the directive contained in subsection (a) of this section. The initial report shall be submitted within 100 days of the date of this order, a second report shall be submitted within 200 days of the date of this order, and a third report shall be submitted within 365 days of the date of this order. Further, the Secretary shall submit a report every 180 days thereafter until the system is fully deployed and operational.

Sec. 8. Visa Interview Security. (a) The Secretary of State shall immediately suspend the Visa Interview Waiver Program and ensure compliance with section 222 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1222, which requires that all individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa undergo an in-person interview, subject to specific statutory exceptions.

(b) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary of State shall immediately expand the Consular Fellows Program, including by substantially increasing the number of Fellows, lengthening or making permanent the period of service, and making language training at the Foreign Service Institute available to Fellows for assignment to posts outside of their area of core linguistic ability, to ensure that non-immigrant visa-interview wait times are not unduly affected.

Sec. 9. Visa Validity Reciprocity. The Secretary of State shall review all nonimmigrant visa reciprocity agreements to ensure that they are, with respect to each visa classification, truly reciprocal insofar as practicable with respect to validity period and fees, as required by sections 221(c) and 281 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(c) and 1351, and other treatment. If a country does not treat United States nationals seeking nonimmigrant visas in a reciprocal manner, the Secretary of State shall adjust the visa validity period, fee schedule, or other treatment to match the treatment of United States nationals by the foreign country, to the extent practicable.

Sec. 10. Transparency and Data Collection. (a) To be more transparent with the American people, and to more effectively implement policies and practices that serve the national interest, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent with applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly available within 180 days, and every 180 days thereafter:

(i) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been charged with terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; or removed from the United States based on terrorism-related activity, affiliation, or material support to a terrorism-related organization, or any other national security reasons since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later;

(ii) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States and engaged in terrorism-related acts, or who have provided material support to terrorism-related organizations in countries that pose a threat to the United States, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and

(iii) information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including honor killings, in the United States by foreign nationals, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and

(iv) any other information relevant to public safety and security as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, including information on the immigration status of foreign nationals charged with major offenses.

(b) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of the date of this order, provide a report on the estimated long-term costs of the USRAP at the Federal, State, and local levels.

Sec. 11. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP

Source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

 

[OregonSnake]

America is not throwing its doors open and inviting terrorist to come on it. The vetting process is thorough. It takes years to achieve refugee status.

I'm not the one buying into the mass hysteria, you are. Ive researched, I know the facts. I've made my decisions. I am not naive. Terrorism works by generating disproportionate amounts of fear.

Exactly 0 Syrian refugees have orchestrated terrorist attacks in the US. Exactly 0 refugees, Syrian or not, have orchestrated terrorist attacks since 1980. Most terrorist attacks have been preformed by either US citizens or citizens from countries that have not been banned.

You have a .00003% chance of dying in an attack by a foreign born terrorist. Muslim extremists have killed, on average, 9 people a year since 9/11. To put that into perspective, over 12,000 people are killed a year by a gun (not including suicides) and 37,000 people die a year in traffic accidents. 113 people die a year by falling off ladders. If Trump wanted to make America safer, he should ban guns, cars, and ladders. But that wouldn't make a whole lot of sense.

This is America. Supposedly, we are supposed to be judged on an individual basis by our ACTIONS not by our associations. It's innocent until proven guilty, not that other way around. No one suggests that all Christians are terrorists, even though Robert Dear killed 3 people in a Planned Parenthood. No one suggests that all men are mass shooters, despite the actions of Dylann Roof, Adam Lanza, and James Holm among others. To belong to a certain demographic does not make you guilty. You are only guilty if you preform a crime, but for some reason we've condemned all muslims as potential terrorists.

Treating these people as monsters doesn't not make you any safer, it only hurts them. They are the victims of extreme amounts of violence who have been treated as scapegoats. It's easy to be scared, and it's easy to look towards someone to hate, but asserting that all muslims are dangerous is morally repugnant and wrong. Certainly, it is untrue. These are people that have been uprooted, have been subject to horror, and who have seen their loved ones die.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rich Z]

America is not throwing its doors open and inviting terrorist to come on it. The vetting process is thorough. It takes years to achieve refugee status.

Ah, yes it is if persons being allowed into this country are not properly and thoroughly vetted. How can it be thorough if the refuges in question have had their infrastructure collapse and the information about them is just not available? If they left their country, for whatever reason, then all of the records about them were abandoned and left behind. What Trump's executive order states is that there needs to be a realistic plan in place to accurately vet the refuges in an attempt to exclude known or suspected terrorists as much as possible. And people are having a problem with that plan? :crazy02:

btw....
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...reme-vetting-hillary-says-vetting-impossible/

I'm not the one buying into the mass hysteria, you are. Ive researched, I know the facts. I've made my decisions. I am not naive. Terrorism works by generating disproportionate amounts of fear.

Then we will just have to disagree. It's really not paranoia if someone IS actually trying to kill you. Or haven't you heard about ISIS yet?

But in any event, I am sure that the families of the people who died on 911 must be quite relieved that those people apparently died from nothing but fear itself. Whew! That is a relief, isn't it? And here I was thinking that there was actual destruction that caused their death. Silly me.

Exactly 0 Syrian refugees have orchestrated terrorist attacks in the US. Exactly 0 refugees, Syrian or not, have orchestrated terrorist attacks since 1980. Most terrorist attacks have been preformed by either US citizens or citizens from countries that have not been banned.

And I sure am relieved that it is impossible for ISIS to disguise themselves as Syrian refugees. Man, I can't tell you what a relief THAT is! But whoa! Wait a minute! These can't be correct, can they?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/29/isis-finds-success-infiltrating-terrorists-into-re/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...fugees-terrorism-radicalisation-a7496771.html

http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...-state-would-use-refugee-flows-to-enter-west/

http://www.newsweek.com/how-isis-smuggles-terrorists-among-syrian-refugees-453039

You have a .00003% chance of dying in an attack by a foreign born terrorist. Muslim extremists have killed, on average, 9 people a year since 9/11. To put that into perspective, over 12,000 people are killed a year by a gun (not including suicides) and 37,000 people die a year in traffic accidents. 113 people die a year by falling off ladders. If Trump wanted to make America safer, he should ban guns, cars, and ladders. But that wouldn't make a whole lot of sense.

Sorry, I'm just not as smart as you are and can't quote statistics as readily. But let me ask you this, and perhaps you can help me with those statistics. What are the chances that you will get into a car accident? What are the chances that your house will sustain significant damage requiring expensive repairs? What are the chances each year that you will suffer a catastrophic and expensive injury or illness? Miniscule chances or sure things? Do you still carry auto, home, and/or health insurance? Now why would you, based on statistics?

This is America. Supposedly, we are supposed to be judged on an individual basis by our ACTIONS not by our associations. It's innocent until proven guilty, not that other way around. No one suggests that all Christians are terrorists, even though Robert Dear killed 3 people in a Planned Parenthood. No one suggests that all men are mass shooters, despite the actions of Dylann Roof, Adam Lanza, and James Holm among others. To belong to a certain demographic does not make you guilty. You are only guilty if you preform a crime, but for some reason we've condemned all muslims as potential terrorists.

I wish that it were true what you state, but nearly ALL gun laws have been passed precisely because what you hope to be true, really is not. They are predicated on the POSSIBILITY and POTENTIAL of wrong doing by using those instruments. Same thing with quite a few laws on the books, actually. Why should I get arrested for driving 150 mph on route 95? Why are recreational drugs an excellent way to get a free ticket into prison? Why can't I just go to the local hardware store and buy a case of dynamite? Heck, recently I wanted to buy some 12 gauge bird bombs for varmint control and come to find out that now I need to have a federal explosives license (FEL) in order to purchase them. So where do you live where laws are such as you suggest they should be?

In any event, Trump's executive order doesn't specify Muslims at all. It specifies localities that from the information he must have at hand, indicates the highest likelihood of terrorist intrusion by ISIS or other violent groups camouflaged as refugees.

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/01/trump-immigration-executive-order-fact-fiction

Treating these people as monsters doesn't not make you any safer, it only hurts them. They are the victims of extreme amounts of violence who have been treated as scapegoats. It's easy to be scared, and it's easy to look towards someone to hate, but asserting that all muslims are dangerous is morally repugnant and wrong. Certainly, it is untrue. These are people that have been uprooted, have been subject to horror, and who have seen their loved ones die.

From what I have seen, it appears that ISIS is composed of monsters. Unfortunately, they just do not seem to have a red light on their forehead that exposes them when hidden among others not of their philosophy about who they consider to be their enemies. And again, I do not believe I have seen any evidence of Trump stating what you are saying he has stated. But to ignore the strong probability that the monsters that chased them out of their homeland will also follow them here, is really, REALLY, naive.

And in case you are unclear about the goals of ISIS...

What is ISIS: Islamic State explained and their sick aim to destroy the West

THE ISLAMIC STATE (ISIS) is notorious for spreading hatred, beheading victims on camera and instigating deadly terrorist attacks. But what exactly is ISIS?

By Alice Foster
PUBLISHED: 13:00, Mon, Sep 26, 2016 | UPDATED: 13:57, Mon, Sep 26, 2016

What does ISIS mean?

The Islamic State is also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

The UK government has encouraged the use of the Arabic acronym Daesh, which the terrorists hate and regard as an insult.

The Arabic word Daes means to 'crush something underfoot' and Dahes means 'one who sows discord'.

Where does ISIS come from?

ISIS has seized large swathes of land stretching from central Iraq to northern Syria where it controls millions of people.

In 2014 the group declared the establishment of a "caliphate" - a successor of past Islamic empires governed according to Sharia law.

The terrorist group's main stronghold is the Syrian city of Raqqa and it also controls a number of lucrative oil fields in Syria.

ISIS has used social media and propaganda to recruit fighters from other parts of the world including the UK and Europe.

How did ISIS start?

ISIS traces its origins to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who formed insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) in 2004 following the US invasion.

But the brutal tactics and videotaped beheadings used by al-Zarqawi were increasingly seen as too extreme, even for al-Qaeda.

After al-Zarqawi's death in 2006, the group rebranded itself as the Islamic State in Iraq (ISI).

Who is the leader of ISIS?

Iraqi Sunni cleric and former US prison inmate Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi became the leader of the terrorist group in 2010.

The militants continued attacks in Iraq and also launched a jihadist front in the Syrian rebellion against President Bashar al-Assad.

Their forces in Iraq and Syria merged together to officially form ISIS in 2013.

What is the goal of ISIS?

Ultimately, the terrorist group wants to build a caliphate that will rule the world.

ISIS welcomes confrontation as fulfilling an apocalyptic prophecy of a battle between jihadist and 'infidel' armies.

The terrorist group has recruited fighters from abroad and it international network of terrorist cells has staged horrific attacks all over the world.

ISIS claimed responsibility for the terror attacks in Paris in November 2015 and the suicide bombings in Brussels in March 2016.

Yeah, sure, let's just throw out the welcome mat for ISIS! After all, all we have to fear is fear itself, right?

 

[Nova_C]

Are you for real?

What cowardice.

Turning away those that need help because there's a boogeyman in the dark. That five year old child that was cuffed by CBP posed such a danger to you, didn't she? The one year dying of cancer that was supposed to go the US for treatment and now can't terrifies you.

ISIS has you so frightened of everything that you would hand your country over to a despot because he promised he would keep you safe.

You're betraying everything America used to stand for. The men and women who created your nation were willing to fight a war on their doorstep to be free. Do you really think any of them would be afraid of some fanatical thugs on the other side of the world?

 

[OregonSnake]

Please, I understand ISIS' goals. Clearly, they are not good people and not people we want in the United States. But most of the refugees are decent people. As I've said before, being from a country involved in terrorism does not make you guilty by association.

I'm not saying to invite ISIS in. Keep ISIS out. I'm saying that in the last 40 years NO refugees have orchestrated terrorist attacks in the United States. I think that shows by itself how well our vetting process is. I believe in statistics. Show me some statistics that show how dangerous refugees are and then perhaps I'll agree with you. Data speaks for itself. Credible evidence from reputable news sites.

As for targeting Muslims, I think Trump made that clear when he spoke about giving priority to Christian refugees.

It is awful what happened to the people who died in terrorist attacks. I'm extremely sorry for them and their loved ones. But they did die for fear. They died because a terrorist group wanted to create terror, hysteria, and mistrust. And, quite frankly, they succeeded. That, however, doesn't make their deaths any less meaningful or horrific.

But you're still not understanding my point: it is paranoia if your chances of dying are minuscule. It would be considered paranoia if I refused to attend class every day because I feared a disgruntled student was going to shoot everyone on campus. your chances of dying in a terrorist attack are very small. Your chances of getting in a car accident are much higher, hence the reason you have car insurance (by the way, the average person gets into a car accident around every 20 years, since you asked). But my point is that the danger of getting into a car accident doesn't stop you from driving. You wear a seatbelt, and that seat belt is analogous to the vetting process by the United States.

I'm not sure what you mean by the sixth chunk down (can't quote). But if you're caught going 150mph you've broken the law, so you are guilty and if you use illegal drugs, then you're breaking the law, so again you are guilty. An untrained person can't buy explosives because they are difficult to manage without training. Dynamite is very temperamental lol. Laws are in place for a reason. I'm talking about condemning someone before they break a law, i.e presumptively arresting a girl walking down the stream with her hood up for fear she's going to shoplift.

However, I am done arguing about this. You have your opinions. I have mine and we are both entitled to them. I hope that this discussion at least gives you some insight to why people are protesting. This ban seems inherently unjust and yet another catastrophe for a group of displaced people that have been though so much.

Call me a libtard. Call me whatever you want. But I believe in data and until I see some data about how dangerous refugees are, I will stand by my position proudly. To me, refusing to let in refugees runs contrary to everything I thought America stood for. America, for the longest time, acted as a safe haven for those oppressed. You can see this by the quote on the Statue of Liberty. It is a shame to see such core values ignored.

Have an excellent day/evening (not sure what time it is where you are). I hope you and all your corn snakes are doing well. Thank you for keeping this discussion civil, it is nice to talk to someone with differing opinions.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rich Z]

Exactly 0 Syrian refugees have orchestrated terrorist attacks in the US. Exactly 0 refugees, Syrian or not, have orchestrated terrorist attacks since 1980.

FYI..... Fast forward to 17:00.

 

[Rich Z]

Are you for real?

Wait a minute, let me feel my leg. Then my arm. Wiggle my toes and fingers. Yep. I'm for real.

Thank you for asking.

 

[OregonSnake]

Thank you, but my point still stands.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rich Z]

Please, I understand ISIS' goals. Clearly, they are not good people and not people we want in the United States. But most of the refugees are decent people. As I've said before, being from a country involved in terrorism does not make you guilty by association.

And as such, my reading of the actual text of the order that Trump signed does not support what you appear to be claiming it does. Which is why I copied the exact text from the US government's own website.

I'm not saying to invite ISIS in. Keep ISIS out. I'm saying that in the last 40 years NO refugees have orchestrated terrorist attacks in the United States. I think that shows by itself how well our vetting process is. I believe in statistics. Show me some statistics that show how dangerous refugees are and then perhaps I'll agree with you. Data speaks for itself. Credible evidence from reputable news sites.

Please see post #36 above. I believe the Congress of the USA taking testimony from relevant department heads should qualify as being "credible" in this instance. Perhaps you will agree after you viewed what is discussed there. Of course, I guess a hair could be finely split by making a distinction between a "refugee" and an "immigrant", but my belief is that they should be used as meaning identical things in this context. Honestly, a "refugee" would likely be rushed through the process exactly because the people involved ARE refugees, and therefor pose an even greater risks of ISIS and the like being able to take advantage of that weakness in the vetting process.

As for targeting Muslims, I think Trump made that clear when he spoke about giving priority to Christian refugees.

That is not how I interpreted it. I recall seeing news articles not that long ago whereby Christians were being targeted by, well, non-Christian religious fanatics, and certainly would be considered as being in very great risk of injury or death simply because of that fact alone. Do I need to find such articles for you? To give such people priority to me doesn't appear to be prejudiced AGAINST Muslims as much as simply being realistic about the group of people most at risk of harm. Wouldn't that just be logical?

It is awful what happened to the people who died in terrorist attacks. I'm extremely sorry for them and their loved ones. But they did die for fear. They died because a terrorist group wanted to create terror, hysteria, and mistrust. And, quite frankly, they succeeded. That, however, doesn't make their deaths any less meaningful or horrific.

And as such, then there most definitely IS a risk of damage, injury and death from terrorists, is there not? And as such, doesn't it strike you as prudent that the President of the USA would be empowered (which he is, btw) to take reasonable steps to try to protect the people of this country from such terrorist acts? Again, from what I have read from the text of his actual order he signed, Trump is saying "Well, hold on a minute. Let's put things on hold TEMPORARILY until we can see if we actually have a good handle on vetting these people, and if not, put in place procedures that will MAKE the process better." And this is what people are complaining and rioting over?

But you're still not understanding my point: it is paranoia if your chances of dying are minuscule. It would be considered paranoia if I refused to attend class every day because I feared a disgruntled student was going to shoot everyone on campus. your chances of dying in a terrorist attack are very small. Your chances of getting in a car accident are much higher, hence the reason you have car insurance (by the way, the average person gets into a car accident around every 20 years, since you asked). But my point is that the danger of getting into a car accident doesn't stop you from driving. You wear a seatbelt, and that seat belt is analogous to the vetting process by the United States.

As a singular person, yes, you are correct. But how about the statistics of SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE in this country being injured or suffer property damage or death at the hands of a terrorist? How do those statistics stack up when you contest the need to try to reduce such a risk to EVERYONE in this country?

As for the analogy of the seat belt, yes, that is a logical position, but it begs the question of WHY the seal belt was invented, implemented, and than forced by law upon all of us drivers? On such a small statistical chance that they would actually be needed, it is the LAW that we MUST use them. And continuing with a like analogy, what about smog emission laws? What are the chances that automobile generated emissions will negatively affect any given person in the USA? Probably not that high, if you are talking about SERIOUS injury or death, but still, it is the law of the land, is it not? Why would the reasonable strategy of reducing the risk of terrorist activity within our borders be given any less credence or consideration as being within the purview of the current POTUS? Except for the fact that it is TRUMP as the POTUS, of course. Because, well, hmm..

According to the draft copy of Trump's executive order, the countries whose citizens are barred entirely from entering the United States is based on a bill that Obama signed into law in December 2015.

Obama signed the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act as part of an omnibus spending bill. The legislation restricted access to the Visa Waiver Program, which allows citizens from 38 countries who are visiting the United States for less than 90 days to enter without a visa.

Though outside groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and NIAC Action — the sister organization of the National Iranian American Council — opposed the act, the bipartisan bill passed through Congress with little pushback.

At the initial signing of the restrictions, foreigners who would normally be deemed eligible for a visa waiver were denied if they had visited Iran, Syria, Sudan or Iraq in the past five years or held dual citizenship from one of those countries.

In February 2016, the Obama administration added Libya, Somali and Yemen to the list of countries one could not have visited — but allowed dual citizens of those countries who had not traveled there access to the Visa Waiver Program. Dual citizens of Syria, Sudan, Iraq and Iran are still ineligible, however.

So, in a nutshell, Obama restricted visa waivers for those seven Muslim-majority countries — Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen — and now, Trump is looking to bar immigration and visitors from the same list of countries.

Source: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...led-muslim-ban-are-ones-obama-choose-n2278021

I'm not sure what you mean by the sixth chunk down (can't quote). But if you're caught going 150mph you've broken the law, so you are guilty and if you use illegal drugs, then you're breaking the law, so again you are guilty. An untrained person can't buy explosives because they are difficult to manage without training. Dynamite is very temperamental lol. Laws are in place for a reason. I'm talking about condemning someone before they break a law, i.e presumptively arresting a girl walking down the stream with her hood up for fear she's going to shoplift.

Let me explain. Speeding, in and of itself, is not causing any damage to anyone, is it? Using illegal drugs are not harming anyone (except arguably the person choosing to use them), are they? Using explosives in a safe manner (removing stumps, etc.) is not harming anyone, is it? See, my point is that these, and others, are laws that were created because of the POTENTIAL for criminal use, not that the actual use MUST always be criminal. So I would be arrested for speeding because of the POSSIBILITY for harm or damage to others. Illegal drugs are outlawed because of an anticipated POSSIBILITY of something, I guess harm to others. And likewise explosives are outlawed (without the red tape necessary to procure permits) because of a POTENTIAL for criminal use. Why would pausing immigration of individuals from areas known to harbor ISIS terrorists be so shocking in the light of what laws in this country already appear to purposed for? This certainly is no departure from what is SOP for government.

However, I am done arguing about this. You have your opinions. I have mine and we are both entitled to them. I hope that this discussion at least gives you some insight to why people are protesting. This ban seems inherently unjust and yet another catastrophe for a group of displaced people that have been though so much.

And I value yours. Yes, obviously we are not seeing the issue from the same vantage point. And I likewise hope that you too will consider another point of view.

Call me a libtard. Call me whatever you want. But I believe in data and until I see some data about how dangerous refugees are, I will stand by my position proudly. To me, refusing to let in refugees runs contrary to everything I thought America stood for. America, for the longest time, acted as a safe haven for those oppressed. You can see this by the quote on the Statue of Liberty. It is a shame to see such core values ignored.

Honestly, I'm just not sure what America stands for any longer. And I will be perfectly honest when I say that I truly hope that Trump will be honest about his intentions for our country and take steps to truly make this country as great as it can be. I am willing to give him a chance to make good on his promises. I didn't vote for Obama, but I felt that he deserved a chance, when elected, to prove to us he was worth being elected to the Presidency. Eight years later, I have to admit that I am disappointed by what I see of America today. And it is in this light that I am optimistic, but certainly not blinded by any radical unthinking support for anyone, that Trump will make things better for this country. Perhaps if radicals would just stop rioting over every breath he takes and every word he utters, maybe he could actually accomplish something positive here.

Have an excellent day/evening (not sure what time it is where you are). I hope you and all your corn snakes are doing well. Thank you for keeping this discussion civil, it is nice to talk to someone with differing opinions.

Yes, thank you. Politics is really nothing to get worked into a lather over. Certainly not worth the extremists in this country rioting and causing destruction and strife like they are doing. Things are tough enough the world over without people just wanting to shed blood and destroy things simply because they disagree with someone else.

Oh, and btw, I retired my SerpenCo business in 2009. The work load and stress was about to kill Connie, myself, or both of us. So I made the only choice I could.

Have a nice night.

 

[OregonSnake]

Ah yes, now I understand your point! Thank you for clearing it up. It's a good point, however, I think of it this way (if we are continuing our speeding analogy):
Imposing no speed limit is analogous to allowing any refugee in the country without thorough screening

Imposing a speed limit is analogous like the vetting process. It substantially lowers the risk to driving, while still allowing the activity to continue.

Banning driving all together= the refugee ban.

I think that sometimes it's easy to forget that who you're arguing with is a real person, and that is when debates get out of hand. I most definitely understand your position, and completely respect, though I disagree with it. And of course terrorism is a very real problem, but I don't agree with shutting down the influx of refugees, especially those who have been waiting years to get in. I'll be happy once the ban is lifted.

I'm giving Donald Trump as much of a chance as I can, but so far we basically fundamentally disagree on just about everything. Perhaps he'll change my mind.

I can't speak much for how the country is changing since I haven't been around for too terribly long. I do, however, feel as though id rather be alive today than any other decade (more opportunities for me, especially in my field of study, than there was in the past). I will admit, I'm a bit afraid of what the future will bring. I see little of the past that I'd like to see return to the present.

I did hear you shut down SerpenCo somewhere I believe. My dad was really into corn snakes while I was growing up and I think he had one or two from you. Now I have 12, haha, so I guess it rubbed off on me. I just didn't know if you still had any as pets.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk