About "It", the Trump Muslim-Ban...

K

Kurmugeon

Verified User
What is meant when the Lefties say, He said "It", and either he's going to break his promise to do "It", or he is discriminating to do "It".


What is "It"?


"It"... hmmmmm ... an unreferenced pronoun... could be about anything really.


I seem to remember watching a speech by Trump were he talked about the campaign slogan "Drain the Swamp", where he stated he did not like the phrase when it was part of a planned campaign speech, thought "It" was corny and over the top.


But, as Trump said, it was wildly popular with his base.


Often, in politics, a politician will end up with some moniker, slogan, or political phrase which is ever after tied closely to their political identity, that they themselves did not coin, and never said.


She never said "it"... that evil "Let them eat cake"!


As far as I know, Trump actually coined a phrase to describe his plans on the "Temporary Country Specific Travel Restrictions" subject, and he called his concept "Extreme Vetting".


Now, I found the term vague and annoying.


Was he trying to say, vetting the asylum applicants for extremism, or using extreme measures to do the vetting? Or both I suppose.


But Trump's term did not say anything about either Region or Religion or Race.


And it did not make a distinction between Temp Travel Visas for business or recreation, vs. Work Green Card vs. Immigration, vs. Asylum seekers.


"It" was the MSM and Internet Media who initially coined the term "Muslim Ban".


Many on this forum have followed Trump's rally speeches closely.




So, does anyone know the true wording/meaning behind "It"?


-
 
Here is a video of the speech were he defines "Extreme Vetting".


He did exactly what he said he would do.

He specified that it was target at a small set of nations with Terrorist problems, not all of Islam, or based on a person's Religion.

He does specifically call out a belief that Sharia Law should overrule American Law, but that's not the same thing as being a Muslim, or so I'm told by all of the Muslim supporters.

Well....

Here at least...


He did not call it a Muslim-Ban!

-
 
If our primary goal is to protect American Citizens, while giving Asylum to the most needy of those caught in the Syrian and Arab Spring Conflicts, selecting specifically those we can verify are Christians from the Region is a way to select those most likely to be slaughtered in the conflict for protection, and selecting the subset of all those seeking Asylum who are least likely to commit mass murder of American Citizens!

In WWII, in 1937, those fleeing Germany in most need to recieve Asylum were not Aryian Germans, some of whom, with openly stated opposition to the Nazi-Regime, or Ayrian Homosexuals, who were being oppressed...

... Those MOST in need of Asylum were the Jews and the Gypsies!

If you can only take a finite number, for security requirements, vetting workload, fiscal restraints, and transport reasons... better to take the least risk and most in danger people!

In this situation, that is clearly Iraqi Christians!


That is not Trump selecting based of favortism of a particular Religion.

1] He is picking a group based on likelyhood of violence occuring to the group, by the bad-actors in the Region.

2] And on the Risk presented by the Asylum seekers, when they get to this country.

Those two things are very valid and LEGAL facts to base a selection on.

If it turned out they were specifically killing left-handed people, then Left-Handness would be a valid parameter to select upon.

-
 
Kurmugeon said:
If our primary goal is to protect American Citizens, while giving Asylum to the most needy of those caught in the Syrian and Arab Spring Conflicts, selecting specifically those we can verify are Christians from the Region is a way to select those most likely to be slaughtered in the conflict for protection, and selecting the subset of all those seeking Asylum who are least likely to commit mass murder of American Citizens!

In WWII, in 1937, those fleeing Germany in most need to recieve Asylum were not Aryian Germans, some of whom, with openly stated opposition to the Nazi-Regime, or Ayrian Homosexuals, who were being oppressed...

... Those MOST in need of Asylum were the Jews and the Gypsies!

If you can only take a finite number, for security requirements, vetting workload, fiscal restraints, and transport reasons... better to take the least risk and most in danger people!

In this situation, that is clearly Iraqi Christians!


That is not Trump selecting based of favortism of a particular Religion.

1] He is picking a group based on likelyhood of violence occuring to the group, by the bad-actors in the Region.

2] And on the Risk presented by the Asylum seekers, when they get to this country.

Those two things are very valid and LEGAL facts to base a selection on.

If it turned out they were specifically killing left-handed people, then Left-Handness would be a valid parameter to select upon.

-
Click to expand...

So when an Iraqi says he is a Christian and seeks asylum how do you know he is not lying just to get into the country and he is really a Muslim?
What is your "test"?
 
Guille said:
Ham sammich.
Click to expand...

That might actually work!

But on a serious note, that's why it takes so much time to vet a potential Asylum candidate.

There has to be an investigation, asking lots of questions, first of the Candidate, and then of others from his home town, place of employment, neighbors... and during a hot war, that simply cannot be done!

So, put up an Army guarded protective enclave on the borders of the area in conflict, and house them there, as the conflict is resolved.

Note, it would expected that the GOOD people, will probably flock together, toward the protective enclave, and they can be cross questioned, separately, for consistency of facts and dates and places of employement etc.

We do this all the time in the United STates, when people apply for a security clearance.

It takes time.

It is expensive.


It is worth the effort to prevent more Olandos.

-
 
Kurmugeon said:
That might actually work!

But on a serious note, that's why it takes so much time to vet a potential Asylum candidate.

There has to be an investigation, asking lots of questions, first of the Candidate, and then of others from his home town, place of employment, neighbors... and during a hot war, that simply cannot be done!

So, put up an Army guarded protective enclave on the borders of the area in conflict, and house them there, as the conflict is resolved.

Note, it would expected that the GOOD people, will probably flock together, toward the protective enclave, and they can be cross questioned, separately, for consistency of facts and dates and places of employement etc.

We do this all the time in the United STates, when people apply for a security clearance.

It takes time.

It is expensive.


It is worth the effort to prevent more Olandos.

-
Click to expand...

Why is the ham sammich not serious? Do you know how the Army tested for German spies during WW2? They asked baseball questions.
 
Guille said:
Ham sammich.
Click to expand...

About the response I would expect from a racist swine like you Guille...
However it doesn't answer the question or solve Trumph's problem...
His ban is specific about religious conviction as the criteria...
The test for that criteria remains the root of this orders effectiveness and why it will be dismissed in court...

You are far too big of an asshole bigot to even see that there is a problem ...
 
Guille said:
Why is the ham sammich not serious? Do you know how the Army tested for German spies during WW2? They asked baseball questions.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm with you... but it would take a number of such "Tests" on different days, with recordings and witnesses and guidelines for implementation.

In the end, it will always come down to finding people for such jobs, with intelligence and integrity.

And mistakes will be made.

But it is allot better than no vetting at all.

-
 
Kurmugeon said:
Oh, I'm with you... but it would take a number of such "Tests" on different days, with recordings and witnesses and guidelines for implementation.

In the end, it will always come down to finding people for such jobs, with intelligence and integrity.

And mistakes will be made.

But it is allot better than no vetting at all.

-
Click to expand...

Still not an answer...
How do you tell the "Christian" Iraqi From the "Muslim" Iraqi when asylum is requested?
The EO is worded by a bigot... I will not pass any court scrutiny... It will fail...
 
Guille said:
You don't eat ham, you don't get in.
Click to expand...

So you would ban Jews from entering the country as well. Why am I not surprised?
These are people willing to vaporize them selves with a bomb or set their incendiary shoes and underwear on fire on an airplane ...
You think they will throw up their hands at a ham sandwich...
Did Trumph put "ham samich" in his EO? Do you think he should have?
Are you that fucking stupid?
Rhetorical question...
You have shown that you are...
An EO that includes a religious test will not pass the courts in the US...
End of Muslim ban...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top