In today's news

[missy]

Missy, I just wanted to acknowledge your very thoughtful response to me.

I am going to need a bit of time to read through it, so I did not want you to think I was ignoring it.

Thanks very much Ruby. I appreciate that.

 

[telephone89]

Sorry for your trauma but that incident has nothing to do with this thread topic as has already be pointed out several times.

And Sandy Hook does? Or am I the only one who cannot stray from the conversation?[/quote]

She appeared to raise the Sandy Hook matter to show neither it nor Boston are relevant to Muslims or travel ban. It would be helpful if other posters didn't stray to irrelevant matters, also.[/quote]
I brought it up because Ruby kept harping on about how the boston bombers killed children maliciously and with intent and they happened to be muslims (though not from the affected countries). Unfortunately children die every day, most at the hands of non-muslims (as shown by sandy hook, the various gun stats posted etc). If someone were truly apt to save childrens lives, this ban is not the way of doing it.

I do apologize for steering us off topic, especially after I had *just* made a response to stop doing it. My own hypocrisy, apologies.

eta - messed up the quote tree, sorry!

 

[mary poppins]

Trump ran on tightening our borders and temporarily halting immigration from certain areas so that a better vetting process could be implemented. Delaying those actions could encourage bad actors to slip in while they could. That's the hurry. The trump administration may add to President Obama's list and should, imo.

During his campaign, Trump said he was going to ban all Muslims, which the executive order (EO) does not do (not that that would be appropriate). Despite citing the 9/11 attack in the EO as rationale for the extreme EO action, none of the countries which were the source of the 9/11 attack were included in the ban. That doesn't make sense. The EO, likely hastily issued after being haphazardly written, was probably to show Trump is fulfilling campaign promises within the first 100 days, and as soon as possible. It is too broad in that it unnecessarily affects too many people (those who have already been vetted) and too narrow in that it does not include countries known to be a threat. No guidelines were provided to Customs and Border Patrol agents which lead to arbitrary enforcement, and WH Chief of Staff Priebus contradicted himself when asked to provide clarification thus showing he doesn't even understand the EO.

This article does a good job describing why there is a lot of opposition to Trump's actions and how they are different than Obama's were (though he also encountered opposition). http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

And that still leaves the question of why Christians get priority for entrance in the U.S., and people trying to get in from the 7 nations are being asked about their Christian knowledge. That doesn't even reflect the US melting pot. As someone who is neither Muslim nor Christian, I would almost certainly fail such a test.

 

[Dancing Fire]

So all those "criminals" are immigrants?

No, but this one is...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/27/us/kate-steinle-wrongful-death-suit/

 

[lovedogs]

So all those "criminals" are immigrants?

No, but this one is...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/27/us/kate-steinle-wrongful-death-suit/

Oh good. You bring up one person and one incident in order to justify this ban, and that example isn't even from one of the countries in question??? I don't understand your point.

 

[ruby59]

So all those "criminals" are immigrants?

No, but this one is...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/27/us/kate-steinle-wrongful-death-suit/

Oh good. You bring up one person and one incident in order to justify this ban, and that example isn't even from one of the countries in question??? I don't understand your point.

One incident is one too many.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Us Chinese are so peaceful..

 

[lovedogs]

So all those "criminals" are immigrants?

No, but this one is...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/27/us/kate-steinle-wrongful-death-suit/

Oh good. You bring up one person and one incident in order to justify this ban, and that example isn't even from one of the countries in question??? I don't understand your point.

One incident is one too many.

You're right. We should ban and deport all white Christians too because some are radical and kill people. That sounds like a super great plan.

 

[ruby59]

So all those "criminals" are immigrants?

No, but this one is...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/27/us/kate-steinle-wrongful-death-suit/

Oh good. You bring up one person and one incident in order to justify this ban, and that example isn't even from one of the countries in question??? I don't understand your point.

One incident is one too many.

You're right. We should ban and deport all white Christians too because some are radical and kill people. That sounds like a super great plan.

Missed my point.

This is in response to the person who said that it is only one incident.

I hardly feel her family looks at it that way.

 

[Dancing Fire]

So all those "criminals" are immigrants?

No, but this one is...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/27/us/kate-steinle-wrongful-death-suit/

Oh good. You bring up one person and one incident in order to justify this ban, and that example isn't even from one of the countries in question??? I don't understand your point.

My point is that this criminal should have been deported a long time ago before the murder happened.

 

[nomissjane]

Why don't you show that chart to the parents of the little boy who died at the Boston Marathon.

Or to all those who know longer have two legs.

Your sanitized charts are numbers.

These are real people who are suffering because of it.

How many children are killed by guns each year?

Nearly 1,500 children younger than 18 years of age die from shootings every year. 1 in 3 families with children have at least one gun in the house. There are more than 22 million children living in homes with guns. Most of the victims of unintentional shootings are boys.


http://www.nationwidechildrens.org/cirp-gun-safety

Every parent who has experienced the death of a child by violence is shattered I am sure.. I would be. I hardly think the numbers are sanitized, they are facts. From the tone of your words, it sounds as though you think the death of a child in a terrorist attack is worse than being accidentally shot by your little bro? I hope you don't mean that.

For me the hurting or killing of a child is the worst crime you can commit.

But obviously one is an accident. The other premeditated.

Those brothers deliberately put one bomb there knowing children were nearby.

Ruby, I rarely if ever, and certainly not in years, post on this forum, however I visit and read and try to take in and process what is discussed by all posters. Respectfully, I'm not sure I understand the logic of this last post.
As an outsider looking in I am interested to hear why you would make the disciction between one being an accident and the other example premeditated?
If a comparitively smaller number of people are killed by the premeditated incidents as compared to the accidental deaths would it not make more sense to focus attention to reducing the cause of the greatest number of deaths? I.e. Gun control?
Dead is dead and both premeditated or accidental death is final and and just as agonizing for families and loved ones left behind.

 

[mary poppins]

Trump ran on tightening our borders and temporarily halting immigration from certain areas so that a better vetting process could be implemented. Delaying those actions could encourage bad actors to slip in while they could. That's the hurry. The trump administration may add to President Obama's list and should, imo.

During his campaign, Trump said he was going to ban all Muslims, which the executive order (EO) does not do (not that that would be appropriate). Despite citing the 9/11 attack in the EO as rationale for the extreme EO action, none of the countries which were the source of the 9/11 attack were included in the ban. That doesn't make sense. The EO, likely hastily issued after being haphazardly written, was probably to show Trump is fulfilling campaign promises within the first 100 days, and as soon as possible. It is too broad in that it unnecessarily affects too many people (those who have already been vetted) and too narrow in that it does not include countries known to be a threat. No guidelines were provided to Customs and Border Patrol agents which lead to arbitrary enforcement, and WH Chief of Staff Priebus contradicted himself when asked to provide clarification thus showing he doesn't even understand the EO.

This article does a good job describing why there is a lot of opposition to Trump's actions and how they are different than Obama's were (though he also encountered opposition). http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

And that still leaves the question of why Christians get priority for entrance in the U.S., and people trying to get in from the 7 nations are being asked about their Christian knowledge. That doesn't even reflect the US melting pot. As someone who is neither Muslim nor Christian, I would almost certainly fail such a test.

Okay, instead of being hastily issued after being haphazardly written maybe it was carefully drafted for nefarious purposes. https://medium.com/@jakefuentes/the-immigration-ban-is-a-headfake-and-were-falling-for-it-b8910e78f0c5#.ltm24l1m2