Trump's Muslim Ban

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby mightyleemoon » Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:52 am

DreadNaught wrote:2) Prevent potential Islamic Terror attacks


You sound like someone who wants to ban guns.

DreadNaught wrote:How many people here travel internationally? Are you not screened/questioned every time?


I travel quite a bit and sometimes all I'm asked is "How long are you staying for?"

Except Belgium. I thought they were going to call my 3rd grade teacher. But, generally, it's pretty superficial questions and they are barely paying attention to me.
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 3460
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 189 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:57 am

bucfanclw wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:
Poppycock!! That's a dog whistle...

What other country welcomes more immigrants from around the world than America? America is already becoming less white and has been for years. Between immigration (both legal and illegal), white couples statistically having less children, and the increase of interracial marriages the white demographic has been decreasing every census. There is nothing you, me, Trump, or anyone else can do to change that trend.

Reigning in the immigration policy in attempt to prevent what we've seen (and continue to see) in Sweeden, Belguim, Germany, etc is not #MAWA.

It's all part of the white genocide being carried out by the left.

Was this a joke or a strawman? Tough to keep track with you and don't want to take you serious if you're making a funny.

I could give two shits about white genocide. I'm a mutt than has married outside of my race (twice) and have a mixed race child. It's folks on your side that buy into identity politics (seems to be working out well).
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 11718
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 479 times
Been thanked: 502 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby bucfanclw » Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:30 am

DreadNaught wrote:
bucfanclw wrote:It's all part of the white genocide being carried out by the left.

Was this a joke or a strawman? Tough to keep track with you and don't want to take you serious if you're making a funny.

I could give two shits about white genocide. I'm a mutt than has married outside of my race (twice) and have a mixed race child. It's folks on your side that buy into identity politics (seems to be working out well).

It's a joke, so thanks to your clarification, it can't be considered a straw man.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3585
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 153 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby deltbucs » Tue Jun 27, 2017 10:02 am

DreadNaught wrote:How many people here travel internationally? Are you not screened/questioned every time? I mean we are Americans with one of the most advanced infrastructure systems in the world and other countries love when we visit to spend money. Yet every time we travel we have to be vetted. So why would we not want (at least) that same standard from people that come from areas deemed to be a higher risk?

Dafuq?
Do you think that people entering the US don't go through customs/immigration just the same as a US citizen does when we enter another country? Have you ever traveled internationally? I've been to many other countries and I maybe get asked why I'm there, how long I'm staying, and where I'm staying....if they even ask me that much. I did get grilled a little bit one time when I was entering London a couple years ago. It wasn't more than a 1 minute conversation, though. I'd say most often they pretty much just look at me and look at my passport and stamp it.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 4796
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 212 times
Been thanked: 286 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Jun 27, 2017 11:53 am

deltbucs wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:How many people here travel internationally? Are you not screened/questioned every time? I mean we are Americans with one of the most advanced infrastructure systems in the world and other countries love when we visit to spend money. Yet every time we travel we have to be vetted. So why would we not want (at least) that same standard from people that come from areas deemed to be a higher risk?

Dafuq?
Do you think that people entering the US don't go through customs/immigration just the same as a US citizen does when we enter another country? Have you ever traveled internationally? I've been to many other countries and I maybe get asked why I'm there, how long I'm staying, and where I'm staying....if they even ask me that much. I did get grilled a little bit one time when I was entering London a couple years ago. It wasn't more than a 1 minute conversation, though. I'd say most often they pretty much just look at me and look at my passport and stamp it.


Yes I've traveled internationally.

My point is that b/c we are Americans our passport acts as our vetting document (this obviously isn't unique to America as most countries have this). We are in a database where if we were a risk that information would be shared. Yet we still get questioned when we travel internationally. Countries that are accepting us are reassured when they stamp our passport we do not meet whatever predetermined risk factor to flag in their system.

The #1 reason those countries are on the travel ban is b/c they lack anything close to that standard. With refugees the standard is even less.

So my point as it pertains to this thread/topic is why would we (Americans) not want (at least) that same standard from people that come from areas deemed to be a higher risk (countries listed by the State Dept for the travel ban)?
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 11718
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 479 times
Been thanked: 502 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby deltbucs » Tue Jun 27, 2017 11:59 am

DreadNaught wrote:
deltbucs wrote:Dafuq?
Do you think that people entering the US don't go through customs/immigration just the same as a US citizen does when we enter another country? Have you ever traveled internationally? I've been to many other countries and I maybe get asked why I'm there, how long I'm staying, and where I'm staying....if they even ask me that much. I did get grilled a little bit one time when I was entering London a couple years ago. It wasn't more than a 1 minute conversation, though. I'd say most often they pretty much just look at me and look at my passport and stamp it.


Yes I've traveled internationally.

My point is that b/c we are Americans our passport acts as our vetting document (this obviously isn't unique to America as most countries have this). We are in a database where if we were a risk that information would be shared. Yet we still get questioned when we travel internationally. Countries that are accepting us are reassured when they stamp our passport we do not meet whatever predetermined risk factor to flag in their system.

The #1 reason those countries are on the travel ban is b/c they lack anything close to that standard. With refugees the standard is even less.

So my point as it pertains to this thread/topic is why would we (Americans) not want (at least) that same standard from people that come from areas deemed to be a higher risk (countries listed by the State Dept for the travel ban)?

So why doesn't your guy that has the best brain and knows more about ISIS than the generals just institute better vetting?
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 4796
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 212 times
Been thanked: 286 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Jun 27, 2017 12:33 pm

deltbucs wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:
Yes I've traveled internationally.

My point is that b/c we are Americans our passport acts as our vetting document (this obviously isn't unique to America as most countries have this). We are in a database where if we were a risk that information would be shared. Yet we still get questioned when we travel internationally. Countries that are accepting us are reassured when they stamp our passport we do not meet whatever predetermined risk factor to flag in their system.

The #1 reason those countries are on the travel ban is b/c they lack anything close to that standard. With refugees the standard is even less.

So my point as it pertains to this thread/topic is why would we (Americans) not want (at least) that same standard from people that come from areas deemed to be a higher risk (countries listed by the State Dept for the travel ban)?

So why doesn't your guy that has the best brain and knows more about ISIS than the generals just institute better vetting?

I don't have that answer. Maybe he's not as smart as he thinks or portrays. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to identify people that are entering our country, most of which have zero intention of leaving.

Think about the legal immigration process for a second. You have to apply, get interviewed, get assigned a case#, etc, etc. Even if you are from a country that is NOT consider "high risk" and has a stable and updated passport infrastructure which can properly identify it's citizens.

So why are people arguing to lessen the standard when it comes to refugees or countries identified by our state dept (under both a Dem and Rep POTUS) as being high risk?

I just want our govt to know who is entering the country and some baseline level of their history as it pertains to their risk. Imo that falls under their core responsibility of defending/protecting our citizens.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 11718
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 479 times
Been thanked: 502 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby deltbucs » Tue Jun 27, 2017 12:43 pm

DreadNaught wrote:
deltbucs wrote:So why doesn't your guy that has the best brain and knows more about ISIS than the generals just institute better vetting?

I don't have that answer. Maybe he's not as smart as he thinks or portrays. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to identify people that are entering our country, most of which have zero intention of leaving.

Think about the legal immigration process for a second. You have to apply, get interviewed, get assigned a case#, etc, etc. Even if you are from a country that is NOT consider "high risk" and has a stable and updated passport infrastructure which can properly identify it's citizens.

So why are people arguing to lessen the standard when it comes to refugees or countries identified by our state dept (under both a Dem and Rep POTUS) as being high risk?

I just want our govt to know who is entering the country and some baseline level of their history as it pertains to their risk. Imo that falls under their core responsibility of defending/protecting our citizens.

Who is arguing to lessen the standards? I (and I'm pretty sure most people) want to raise the standards for visitors or immigrants from high risk areas. So ****ing do it then.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 4796
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 212 times
Been thanked: 286 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby bucfanclw » Tue Jun 27, 2017 12:50 pm

DreadNaught wrote:
deltbucs wrote:So why doesn't your guy that has the best brain and knows more about ISIS than the generals just institute better vetting?

I don't have that answer. Maybe he's not as smart as he thinks or portrays. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to identify people that are entering our country, most of which have zero intention of leaving.

Think about the legal immigration process for a second. You have to apply, get interviewed, get assigned a case#, etc, etc. Even if you are from a country that is NOT consider "high risk" and has a stable and updated passport infrastructure which can properly identify it's citizens.

So why are people arguing to lessen the standard when it comes to refugees or countries identified by our state dept (under both a Dem and Rep POTUS) as being high risk?

I just want our govt to know who is entering the country and some baseline level of their history as it pertains to their risk. Imo that falls under their core responsibility of defending/protecting our citizens.

Here's the thing that your complaint seems to be missing... NOBODY is calling for LESS vetting than is already in place. What people are complaining about is that even with the massive amount of vetting that they have to go through, you want to completely halt the travel of anyone that has ever visited those countries because you seem to have it in your head that they just waltz right in without any checks at all. That's stupid beyond words. All anybody has asked for is justification for a travel ban which Trump has refused to provide. There was no imminent threat. He just wants to ban travel because his idiot followers have been so programmed to be fearful of terrorists that they'll defend anything he does if he says it's for "National Security". If the President told you that we need to shut down all restaurants today because even with the screening process and laws we have in place, we can't be sure that one restaurant doesn't serve horse meat and people that have worked there may work elsewhere in the restaurant industry, how would you react? Stop portraying those that are against the ban as somehow wanting wide open, unchecked borders because that's simply not the case.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3585
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 153 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby uscbucsfan » Tue Jun 27, 2017 1:18 pm

bucfanclw wrote:Here's the thing that your complaint seems to be missing... NOBODY is calling for LESS vetting than is already in place.


I could be wrong, but I believe he's saying less than people from other countries, because we have less information on them. The issue is that will take years to change and will likely never happen.

What people are complaining about is that even with the massive amount of vetting that they have to go through, you want to completely halt the travel of anyone that has ever visited those countries because you seem to have it in your head that they just waltz right in without any checks at all. That's stupid beyond words. All anybody has asked for is justification for a travel ban which Trump has refused to provide.
There was no imminent threat. He just wants to ban travel because his idiot followers have been so programmed to be fearful of terrorists that they'll defend anything he does if he says it's for "National Security".


This issue with the lack of information to vet has been debated for the last maybe 6 years or so in regards to these countries. There is no solution to it, so Trump is enacting this to appease his supporters, you are correct.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 4147
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 90 times
Been thanked: 108 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby bucfanclw » Tue Jun 27, 2017 1:29 pm

uscbucsfan wrote:I could be wrong, but I believe he's saying less than people from other countries, because we have less information on them. The issue is that will take years to change and will likely never happen.

That's not what he said here:
DreadNaught wrote:So why are people arguing to lessen the standard when it comes to refugees or countries identified by our state dept (under both a Dem and Rep POTUS) as being high risk?

I fully believe refugees should be vetted to the maximum extent we can. Which we do. Which is why we have never had a terrorist attack carried out by a refugee. Not a single attack we've had would have been stopped by this travel ban, but guys like DN seem to think we have a separate "Terrorist Magic Band Fast Pass" system in place that Trump has taken the steps to shut down.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3585
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 153 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Jun 27, 2017 1:34 pm

bucfanclw wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:I don't have that answer. Maybe he's not as smart as he thinks or portrays. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to identify people that are entering our country, most of which have zero intention of leaving.

Think about the legal immigration process for a second. You have to apply, get interviewed, get assigned a case#, etc, etc. Even if you are from a country that is NOT consider "high risk" and has a stable and updated passport infrastructure which can properly identify it's citizens.

So why are people arguing to lessen the standard when it comes to refugees or countries identified by our state dept (under both a Dem and Rep POTUS) as being high risk?

I just want our govt to know who is entering the country and some baseline level of their history as it pertains to their risk. Imo that falls under their core responsibility of defending/protecting our citizens.

Here's the thing that your complaint seems to be missing... NOBODY is calling for LESS vetting than is already in place. What people are complaining about is that even with the massive amount of vetting that they have to go through, you want to completely halt the travel of anyone that has ever visited those countries because you seem to have it in your head that they just waltz right in without any checks at all. That's stupid beyond words. All anybody has asked for is justification for a travel ban which Trump has refused to provide. There was no imminent threat. He just wants to ban travel because his idiot followers have been so programmed to be fearful of terrorists that they'll defend anything he does if he says it's for "National Security". If the President told you that we need to shut down all restaurants today because even with the screening process and laws we have in place, we can't be sure that one restaurant doesn't serve horse meat and people that have worked there may work elsewhere in the restaurant industry, how would you react? Stop portraying those that are against the ban as somehow wanting wide open, unchecked borders because that's simply not the case.


I'm not suggesting that you want open borders or to lesser vetting, I'm saying lesser vetting is ALREADY in place from certain areas and you're arguing not to improve it so that it meets close to the same standard we have for the rest of the people we permit into our country.

We don't know the history of many of the people in these listed countries because those countries either lack the infrastructure, or don't share intelligence. Therefore it is literally impossible to vet them to the same standard as someone trying to immigrate here legally from, say a county like Japan or Brazil.

You can bloviate about Trump and your projection of groupthink all of his "idiot followers" must subscribe to if it makes you feel better. I'm fearful of terrorists b/c I've spent time in the ME doing detainee opps (long before Trump was candidate) and I know these people view me, you, Corsair, SDBucs and everyone else reading this forum as their enemy and they would kill all of us if nobody stopped them. I'm not even talking about just the jihadis. If you think I'm kidding than travel into any one of these countries and take a walk down the street. Our own soldiers are getting killed by the very people we are training to protect the new government, these are supposed to be the people on our side and they are still killing us. Yet I'm supposed to oppose my government wanting to impose some additional vetting on the very same people from entering our country?

I know they are not all bad or carry a risk. But you're living in some same faux-reality if you believe they are just a peaceful people that are victims of a being born in a war torn country.

All I want is out govt to know who they are allowing in this country to the same standard. If Trump wants additional or "extreme" vetting than I support that also. Right now that is impossible from certain areas. I realize it's not their fault they lived in a shithole country that doesn't have a way to identify it's citizens. But that doesn't mean we should just assume they probably not a risk. If anything we should hold them a bit longer in safe zones while vetting to understand who they are, who are their relatives and associations, and what their intentions are upon entering the US. Perhaps some of that is happening now, but until their country of origin catches up with the rest of the world in terms of identifying people and sharing intelligence that is just the way it is.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 11718
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 479 times
Been thanked: 502 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby Brazen331 » Tue Jun 27, 2017 1:37 pm

There is no information on people from places like Sudan and Yemen. I understand that counties like these provide the type of immigrants Liberals want: Muslim, non-European, uneducated, unskilled, most likely unable to support themselves and most likely dependent on public assistance.

These counties also produce people many conservatives fear, justified or not. Perhaps a work around can be found, maybe only accept women and children from these places due to the added risk. I see no reason to accept a 25 year old man from Syria or Sudan. They should be fighting for and rebuilding their own countries.
Brazen331
 
Posts: 2709
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:25 am
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 42 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Jun 27, 2017 1:40 pm

uscbucsfan wrote:
bucfanclw wrote:Here's the thing that your complaint seems to be missing... NOBODY is calling for LESS vetting than is already in place.

I could be wrong, but I believe he's saying less than people from other countries, because we have less information on them. The issue is that will take years to change and will likely never happen.



Image
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 11718
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 479 times
Been thanked: 502 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby bucfanclw » Tue Jun 27, 2017 1:46 pm

Brazen331 wrote:There is no information on people from places like Sudan and Yemen. I understand that counties like these provide the type of immigrants Liberals want: Muslim, non-European, uneducated, unskilled, most likely unable to support themselves and most likely dependent on public assistance.

These counties also produce people many conservatives fear, justified or not. Perhaps a work around can be found, maybe only accept women and children from these places due to the added risk. I see no reason to accept a 25 year old man from Syria or Sudan. They should be fighting for and rebuilding their own countries.

You're kidding, right? We already limit acceptance to women and children unless a legitimate need is shown for a young male, and even then, only as part of a family.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3585
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 153 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby Brazen331 » Tue Jun 27, 2017 1:56 pm

bucfanclw wrote:
Brazen331 wrote:There is no information on people from places like Sudan and Yemen. I understand that counties like these provide the type of immigrants Liberals want: Muslim, non-European, uneducated, unskilled, most likely unable to support themselves and most likely dependent on public assistance.

These counties also produce people many conservatives fear, justified or not. Perhaps a work around can be found, maybe only accept women and children from these places due to the added risk. I see no reason to accept a 25 year old man from Syria or Sudan. They should be fighting for and rebuilding their own countries.

You're kidding, right? We already limit acceptance to women and children unless a legitimate need is shown for a young male, and even then, only as part of a family.


Then this should be enough to satisfy you. We already have 324 million people in this country and a mega-trillion dollar debt. How many people unskilled, uneducated people do you think we can absorb?
Brazen331
 
Posts: 2709
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:25 am
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 42 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby bucfanclw » Tue Jun 27, 2017 2:00 pm

Brazen331 wrote:
bucfanclw wrote:You're kidding, right? We already limit acceptance to women and children unless a legitimate need is shown for a young male, and even then, only as part of a family.


Then this should be enough to satisfy you. We already have 324 million people in this country and a mega-trillion dollar debt. How many people unskilled, uneducated people do you think we can absorb?

I am satisfied. I'm not the one demanding changes to our system and travel bans.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3585
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 153 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby beardmcdoug » Tue Jun 27, 2017 3:06 pm

bucfanclw wrote:
Brazen331 wrote:There is no information on people from places like Sudan and Yemen. I understand that counties like these provide the type of immigrants Liberals want: Muslim, non-European, uneducated, unskilled, most likely unable to support themselves and most likely dependent on public assistance.

These counties also produce people many conservatives fear, justified or not. Perhaps a work around can be found, maybe only accept women and children from these places due to the added risk. I see no reason to accept a 25 year old man from Syria or Sudan. They should be fighting for and rebuilding their own countries.

You're kidding, right? We already limit acceptance to women and children unless a legitimate need is shown for a young male, and even then, only as part of a family.


Image

Image
(migrationpolicy.org)

Image
(pewresearch.org)

........................Total....................Female............Male
.......................730,259.................408,064..........322,164

18 to 20 years......19,380...................9,814.............9,565
21 years and over..710,879................398,250...........312,599

(dept of homeland security - dhs.gov)



Oh you meant REFUGEES, not just immigrants:

Total: 69,920
Female: 33,335
Male: 36,584

"Yeah, so... they came along with their wives/mothers"

Married: 25,063 out of 69,920 (only 35%)

"Well, they're actually the majority are kids, so of course they're not married"

0 to 17 years: 27,681 out of 69,920 (only 39%)

Source: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Refugees_Asylees_2015.pdf
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 2654
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 304 times
Been thanked: 197 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Jun 27, 2017 3:21 pm

I think we can all agree the standard to let in hot broadss should be much lower than for men
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5041
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 190 times
Been thanked: 247 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Jun 27, 2017 3:52 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:I think we can all agree the standard to let in hot broadss should be much lower than for men


Did YOU just assume their gender?

You're a MONSTER!
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 11718
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 479 times
Been thanked: 502 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby bucfanclw » Tue Jun 27, 2017 3:53 pm

Calendar year 2016 - 15,479 total

14 and under - 7,428 48%
Females 15-50 - 3,521 23%
Males 15-50 - 3904 25%

Calendar year 2017 - 2,815 total

14 and under - 1231 44%
Females 15-50 - 687 24%
Males 15-50 - 713 25%

If we're talking the 21-30 range males that Brazen mentioned:
2016 - 682 - 4.4%
2017 - 160 - 5.6%

Looks like it's not the crazy "mostly able bodied men" myth that keeps getting thrown out there.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3585
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 153 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby beardmcdoug » Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:13 pm

bucfanclw wrote:Calendar year 2016 - 15,479 total

14 and under - 7,428 48%
Females 15-50 - 3,521 23%
Males 15-50 - 3904 25%

Calendar year 2017 - 2,815 total

14 and under - 1231 44%
Females 15-50 - 687 24%
Males 15-50 - 713 25%

If we're talking the 21-30 range males that Brazen mentioned:
2016 - 682 - 4.4%
2017 - 160 - 5.6%

Looks like it's not the crazy "mostly able bodied men" myth that keeps getting thrown out there.


Looks like it's also not even remotely "only women and children.... and in some extreme cases, a family man"
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 2654
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 304 times
Been thanked: 197 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:33 pm

DreadNaught wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:I think we can all agree the standard to let in hot broadss should be much lower than for men


Did YOU just assume their gender?

You're a MONSTER!




No i don't assume anything. If they look like a hot woman I will do a further inspection
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5041
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 190 times
Been thanked: 247 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:28 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:
Did YOU just assume their gender?

You're a MONSTER!




No i don't assume anything. If they look like a hot woman I will do a further inspection


Ok Java :lol:
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 11718
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 479 times
Been thanked: 502 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:35 pm

We live in hope
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5041
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 190 times
Been thanked: 247 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby DreadNaught » Wed Jun 28, 2017 10:05 am

beardmcdoug wrote:
bucfanclw wrote:Calendar year 2016 - 15,479 total

14 and under - 7,428 48%
Females 15-50 - 3,521 23%
Males 15-50 - 3904 25%

Calendar year 2017 - 2,815 total

14 and under - 1231 44%
Females 15-50 - 687 24%
Males 15-50 - 713 25%

If we're talking the 21-30 range males that Brazen mentioned:
2016 - 682 - 4.4%
2017 - 160 - 5.6%

Looks like it's not the crazy "mostly able bodied men" myth that keeps getting thrown out there.


Looks like it's also not even remotely "only women and children.... and in some extreme cases, a family man"


Beyond the security aspect, there is also the economic impact of migration that Brazen touched on.

LINK The German commissioner for immigration, refugees and integration, told the Financial Times that only a quarter to a third of the newcomers would enter the labour market over the next five years, and “for many others we will need up to 10”.

The Institute for Employment Research (IAB) found only 45 per cent of Syrian refugees in Germany have a school-leaving certificate and 23 per cent a college degree.

Statistics from the Federal Labour Agency show the employment rate among refugees stands at just 17% It said 484,000 of the refugees are looking for work, up from 322,000 last July — an increase of 50 per cent.

Of those, 178,500 are officially unemployed, meaning they not only have no work but are not enrolled in any training programmes or language courses — up 27 per cent on last July.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 11718
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 479 times
Been thanked: 502 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby deltbucs » Sat Jul 15, 2017 7:40 am

Made it back into the states from Azerbaijan! Trump is worse at this than Obama was at taking our guns.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 4796
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 212 times
Been thanked: 286 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Sat Jul 15, 2017 10:13 am

deltbucs wrote:Made it back into the states from Azerbaijan! Trump is worse at this than Obama was at taking our guns.

Shoulda walked through customs with a prayer rug under your arm.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 12063
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 124 times
Been thanked: 593 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby SDBucs » Sat Jul 15, 2017 8:47 pm

https://archive.is/xt7fj

According to newly released data from the Swedish National Board of Forensic Medicine (RMV), up to 86% of Sweden’s so-called “child migrants” could be adults.
The RMV began medically testing “child” migrants to ascertain their biological age in mid-March, 2017. To do this, they looked at the development of the children’s wisdom teeth and wear on the knee joints. Testing continued until June 30, 2017. During this time the RMV forwarded a total of 1,481 cases to Sweden’s Migrant Board.
Here’s what they found: of the 1,481 child asylum applications forwarded, 1,215 applicants were biologically adults. That is, 86% of Sweden’s “migrant children” were likely over the age of 18.
And of course, the vast majority of them were male—only 33 of the “underage” asylum-seekers were women.
Given this sample, it’s reasonable to infer that most of Sweden’s underage asylum seekers were actually adult males, who lied about their age to gain priority.
If I’m being honest, I’m really not surprised. Anyone with eyes and a brain should’ve known they weren’t children just by looking at them—how many children are 6’3 and have clearly went through puberty?



But they're all woman and children the govt told me so.. right clew?
SDBucs
 
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:30 pm
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby Corsair » Sat Jul 15, 2017 9:41 pm

NationalEconomicsEditorial.com!?!?!

LMFAO

Could you find a MORE biased source? I don't think so:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/national ... editorial/
Image

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, overt propaganda, poor or no sourcing to credible information and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the notes section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

Bias: Extreme Right, Propaganda

Notes: National Economics Editorial (NEE) is a news site that purports to support Economic Nationalism. While NEE does cover some economic issues it is, as the name implies, mainly an editorial site. The opinions expressed in the stories cover current affairs with a pronounced right wing bias. NEE is, on the whole, long on rhetoric and short on factual content and credible sourcing. Due to the overt bias and lack of factual information, NEE is rated Questionable. (D. Kelley)
Image
User avatar
Corsair
 
Posts: 5420
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:25 am
Has thanked: 154 times
Been thanked: 283 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Brazen331, PanteraCanes and 6 guests

cron