Most Support Temporary Ban on Newcomers from Terrorist Havens - Rasmussen

[Boiler 45,516]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/10/06/ohio-retiree-loses-citizenship/13d036e1-ab86-4502-9ae0-8e5eefcd503c/?utm_term=.c5f451e4442c

 

A retired Ohio factory worker has been stripped of his U.S. citizenship for working as a guard at a Nazi slave labor camp during World War II, the Justice Department said yesterday.

 

Happens

[Transborderwife 4,666]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

Just realized something rather sad...

 

THe United Kingdom has supplied more (or at the very least an equal) number of terrorists on US soil (1 terrorist came from the UK, which is more than we can say for most of the countries on the ban).

 

So should we be banning the UK?

 

We should just blanket ban everyone and send the Statue of Liberty back to France.

Wait what?  What did France?

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Transborderwife said:

Wait what?  What did France?

? It was a gift from France. It is (was?) an icon of freedom and our immigrant nation. 

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 minute ago, Boiler said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/10/06/ohio-retiree-loses-citizenship/13d036e1-ab86-4502-9ae0-8e5eefcd503c/?utm_term=.c5f451e4442c

 

A retired Ohio factory worker has been stripped of his U.S. citizenship for working as a guard at a Nazi slave labor camp during World War II, the Justice Department said yesterday.

 

Happens

jeez. moving the goal post? are you also saying that we should have a review of eligibility for current citizens based on the info from nb's link and now yours?

[Transborderwife 4,666]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

? It was a gift from France. It is (was?) an icon of freedom and our immigrant nation. 

Right...but why send it back?  Ohhh now I think I get it.  I thought it was something against France 

[Boiler 45,516]

2 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

jeez. moving the goal post? are you also saying that we should have a review of eligibility for current citizens based on the info from nb's link and now yours?

Sorry, did not realise WashPo was not an approved source.

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Transborderwife said:

Right...but why send it back?  Ohhh now I think I get it.  I thought it was something against France 

No it was something against us. We don't deserve it anymore.

[Transborderwife 4,666]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

No it was something against us. We don't deserve it anymore.

Yeah I get that now 

[smilesammich 10,727]

4 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Sorry, did not realise WashPo was not an approved source.

washington post is good with me, i wasn't taking issue with the article. so, do you think we should have a review of citizen ship since nb pointed out we're giving out citizenship in error en masse?

[Boiler 45,516]

If  head choppers gets Citizenship then I would expect the same process.

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, Boiler said:

If  head choppers gets Citizenship then I would expect the same process.

so only beheadings matter now? we should be good.

 

 

[bcking 3,157]

Back to the actual topic of this particular thread -

 

I only have two possible explanations for a poll showing most support this executive order:

1. The question was actually phrased something like "Do you support temporarily stopping visitation for people from areas known to associate with terrorists"?

Obviously many people would read that question, see the words "associate with terrorists" and think "well yes obviously we want to do that" without realizing it is ban on entire countries, many of which actually haven't been linked to any terrorist attacks on our soil.

 

2. Pure ignorance, plain and simple. It is related to option 1 but no matter how the question is worded, I'm sure there are plenty of people out there that just think "foreigner = bad" and can't think beyond that. They don't realize that even if there was a good argument for limiting travel from certain countries, the countries picked are absolutely the wrong choices. The EO is targetting the wrong countries, plain and simple, and people likely don't realize that.

 

Essentially I don't support his agenda, but even if I DID support his agenda, oh my god we could be doing it so much better (worse? better in Trump's eyes). Even if I was a racist foreigner-fearing nut job, this EO doesn't do it's job. Practically all of the countries that have sent terrorists to our shores in the past are still able to continue to do so (Only 3 terrorists came from these 7 countires, and two were already US citizens at the time of their attack. No lives have been lost from any terror attack originating from someone coming from any of these 7 countries).

Edited January 31, 2017 by bcking

[Dashinka 24,499]

19 hours ago, bcking said:

Back to the actual topic of this particular thread -

 

I only have two possible explanations for a poll showing most support this executive order:

1. The question was actually phrased something like "Do you support temporarily stopping visitation for people from areas known to associate with terrorists"?

Obviously many people would read that question, see the words "associate with terrorists" and think "well yes obviously we want to do that" without realizing it is ban on entire countries, many of which actually haven't been linked to any terrorist attacks on our soil.

 

2. Pure ignorance, plain and simple. It is related to option 1 but no matter how the question is worded, I'm sure there are plenty of people out there that just think "foreigner = bad" and can't think beyond that. They don't realize that even if there was a good argument for limiting travel from certain countries, the countries picked are absolutely the wrong choices. The EO is targetting the wrong countries, plain and simple, and people likely don't realize that.

 

Essentially I don't support his agenda, but even if I DID support his agenda, oh my god we could be doing it so much better (worse? better in Trump's eyes). Even if I was a racist foreigner-fearing nut job, this EO doesn't do it's job. Practically all of the countries that have sent terrorists to our shores in the past are still able to continue to do so (Only 3 terrorists came from these 7 countires, and two were already US citizens at the time of their attack. No lives have been lost from any terror attack originating from someone coming from any of these 7 countries).

Isn't that the issue with pretty much every poll.  A good example is that Obama generally had a good job approval rating himself, but when you polled people about this policies only, the results were generally negative.  All polls rely on the question being asked, in other words, phrasing matters.

 

As to your number two, I think people could be thinking more like it is better to error on the side of caution rather than to have open borders.  This does not mean that the majority of people equate a foreigner with being bad, just some of them are, and we need to do everything we can to make sure we keep those that are bad out.

Edited February 1, 2017 by Bill & Katya

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

Isn't that the issue with pretty much every poll.  A good example is that Obama generally had a good job approval rating himself, but when you polled people about this policies only, the results were generally negative.  All polls rely on the question being asked, in other words, phrasing matters.

Ya absolutely agree. I tried to see exactly how they asked the question but they didn't specify it in their methodology. A good survey-based study would very clearly report the data with the exact question that was answered, instead of trying to "paraphrase" the responses. 

 

It would surprise me that a lot of people would support banning people from "terrorist associated areas". Even for me that is what bothers me with the EO. For me I'm bothered by the false sense of reassurance he is trying to provide with it. Ban immigration from 7 countries that combined have only produced 3 terrorists in the US since 2001 (and 2 of which were naturalized citizens, so really just 1) and say you are "making America safe" while you don't put restrictions on the countries that have supplied the terrorists that have made us "unsafe" (Saudi Arabia being a major one). I would say a similar thing to what Obama did a few years back with these countries, though I wouldn't have been as bothered since he wasn't blanket banning people, he was just excluding them from the VWP. 

 

Had the EO said that from now moving forward there was going to be a temporary halt on granting new visas from all countries that have harbored terrorists and through which terrorists have travelled to the US to harm Americans, and that we were going to slow down (but not completely ban) the acceptance of refugees, I would have been okay with it. It still would have impacted practically all muslim-dominant countries, but at least it would be more rational with its claim to try to halt terrorist activity within our borders (though it would also include places like the UK which would have been a little awkward). 

 

I still don't think it would solve our problems, but at least it would be in line with what he is claiming he wants to do. The problem is he says he wants to do one thing, but also doesn't want to hurt key allies (even if they are the major problem) and likely also doesn't want to hurt his own interests (and even a "blind trust" wouldn't have solved that, since he will always remember where he has interests and he is a businessman at heart).

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

Both my wife and I support this ban... MAGA