Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Refugees/Citizens of Muslim Countries Barred


Claire.

Recommended Posts

yea, i believe that, if you touch someones women in iraq you'll have problems, in sweden, noting like that, cops will cover up your crime, and sweden males, and even police are afraid to touch them, they can be called islamophobic, racist, and lose their job, or even get arrested. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Dark_Grey said:

It happened so quick because the paperwork had already been done. This wasn't a list Trump made up while sipping expensive brandy, it was Oby's idea.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/feb/07/reince-priebus/were-7-nations-identified-donald-trumps-travel-ban/

 

I was talking about the IMPLEMENTATION.  Remember when he said that there couldn't be a delay in implementation because all of the bad guys would hop on planes right away?  Not about how quick it was written.  And, yes, I know Trump didn't write it while sipping some expensive Brandy...clearly it was Steve Bannon.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sweetpumper said:

War Correspondent Says Mosul Safer for Women than Sweden

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/03/07/war-correspondent-iraq-safer-sweden/

Unmitigated bunk, ^^^^

Sweden Is Officially the Best Country in the World for Women

http://www.vogue.com/article/sweden-best-country-for-women

I know that the source is 'Vogue' but yours was 'Breitbart', so I don't feel bad in the least.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, and then said:

Keep talking your ****.  You think you have all the answers but the truth is that nothing you advocate would change anything for the better.  Useless.  

Who's been triggered?    Don't run away again!  Answer my questions for a change instead of laying little eggs with insults in them and then running away from me.

What do you want to change for the better?   Radical Islamic Terrorism?   That's 6% of terrorism, and 2% of terrorist attacks.  Oh you'll change the world with a blind man's solution for that one.

Your useless brain trap of "do what I think or do nothing!" prevents you from using your brain, sorry.   But it does.   You'd be sharing ideas instead of insults if I was wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish I could put together a MMA match with people from this topic in it.....I already know the fight card.......

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Sakari said:

I wish I could put together a MMA match with people from this topic in it.....I already know the fight card.......

You don't talk about UM Fight Club. :ph34r:

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some Threads you want to yell

No fairs!

funny-cat-fight-flash-1.gif

.

.

H E Y !

NO FLYING !ea758f25d9761e5b7561feb8cd97e60c6b437bec

* piercing whistle *
POINT TAKEN AWAY !

 

* whistle *

NO HITCHHIKING !

Bird-and-cat-fight-funny-wallpaper-300x2

Edited by MWoo7
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MamaMia1981

I don't wanna debate, just a few thing that I've come across the last couple weeks since the last time I posted in this thread.

Back in 2015, when evaluating the refugee crisis, the House Committee of Homeland Security admitted that we can not properly vet these refugees.  It's not a question so much as who is committing acts of terrorism, and more that we have no way to cross check people from failed states.

https://homeland.house.gov/press/nations-top-security-officials-concerns-on-refugee-vetting/

So really, what it comes down to, is...what is an acceptable amount of risk?  I think back to 9/11, and it only took 19 people to kill over 3,000 Americans, so....if our vetting process works 980 times out of 1,000, that still puts the public at a significant risk, if those 20 times we inadvertently let in extremists.

*ducks and runs out of thread*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, MamaMia1981 said:

I don't wanna debate, just a few thing that I've come across the last couple weeks since the last time I posted in this thread.

*video snip*

Back in 2015, when evaluating the refugee crisis, the House Committee of Homeland Security admitted that we can not properly vet these refugees.  It's not a question so much as who is committing acts of terrorism, and more that we have no way to cross check people from failed states.

https://homeland.house.gov/press/nations-top-security-officials-concerns-on-refugee-vetting/

So really, what it comes down to, is...what is an acceptable amount of risk?  I think back to 9/11, and it only took 19 people to kill over 3,000 Americans, so....if our vetting process works 980 times out of 1,000, that still puts the public at a significant risk, if those 20 times we inadvertently let in extremists.

*ducks and runs out of thread*

I suppose, for each country, you accept however many refugees that you're comfortable with.

Last year, here in Canada, we took in 40,000 from Syria alone. I'm comfortable with that.

This year it might be 15,000. I'm good with that too.

I wish we could do more.

Edited by Likely Guy
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

U.S. judge allows Hawaii to challenge Trump's new travel ban.

The state of Hawaii can sue over President Donald Trump's new executive order temporarily banning the entry of refugees and travelers from six Muslim-majority countries, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday.

U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii said the state could revise its initial lawsuit, which had challenged Trump's original ban signed in January. The state is claiming the revised ban signed by the president on Monday violates the U.S. Constitution. It is the first legal challenge to the revised order.

The state of Hawaii will ask the court on Wednesday to put an emergency halt to Trump's new order, according to a court schedule signed by the judge. A hearing is set for March 15, a day before the new ban is to go into effect.

Source: Reuters

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Likely Guy said:

I suppose, for each country, you accept however many refugees that you're comfortable with.

Last year, here in Canada, we took in 40,000 from Syria alone. I'm comfortable with that.

This year it might be 15,000. I'm good with that too.

I wish we could do more.

I hear you, but I still wish more people especially leaders would consider other options, people are divided, resources are stretched, and the skills people can be trained in or taught are going begging. Id rather see infrastructure in needy places than stretching already stretched resources. I really think places like PNG or Haiti would benefit from First world countries introducing infrastructure to places that could be built on and bettered with industry. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

I hear you, but I still wish more people especially leaders would consider other options, people are divided, resources are stretched, and the skills people can be trained in or taught are going begging. Id rather see infrastructure in needy places than stretching already stretched resources. I really think places like PNG or Haiti would benefit from First world countries introducing infrastructure to places that could be built on and bettered with industry. 

What would be the 'other options' you inferred? You intimated better infrastructure in needy countries, that's a starter. How would that happen?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other, most logical option, would've been for Syrians to stay in Syria. The whole situation is a result of failed policies under Obama and EU leaders. Empowering extremist groups and bombing the country isn't exactly the best way to keep it's civilians from seeking refuge elsewhere.

Also, it's very odd that wealthy gulf states haven't taken in refugees. You have to wonder.

Edited by TruthSeeker_
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

The other, most logical option, would've been for Syrians to stay in Syria. The whole situation is a result of failed policies under Obama and EU leaders. Empowering extremist groups and bombing the country isn't exactly the best way to keep it's civilians from seeking refuge elsewhere.

Also, it's very odd that wealthy gulf states haven't taken in refugees. You have to wonder.

That's already happened. Hoping for what didn't happen, doesn't count.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

President Trump is doing a great job to make our country  safe and great again, so why don't we let just him get on with it.:) The Muslims have to stand up against their own radicals of their religion to.

 

Edited by docyabut2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Likely Guy said:

That's already happened. Hoping for what didn't happen, doesn't count.

So we should just accept thousands and thousands of refugees without asking any questions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

So we should just accept thousands and thousands of refugees without asking any questions?

Of course not.

Canada accepted 10's of thousands of refugees after asking 100's of thousands of questions.

Edited by Likely Guy
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

Also, it's very odd that wealthy gulf states haven't taken in refugees. You have to wonder.

I read a Tunisian opinion piece about it, why Muslim countries youth would always chose Europe over these Islamic sultanate countries, the conclusion was: no one in their right mind would go there, not even Muslims.

Remember the drama over the 2020 World Cup contruction workers inhuman conditions? That's the reason.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/14/fifa-qatar-world-cup-report-human-rights

No one in their right mind would go there, no even Muslims.

Edited by Gingitsune
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Likely Guy said:

What would be the 'other options' you inferred? You intimated better infrastructure in needy countries, that's a starter. How would that happen?

Using the money we are using to build detention centres, investigate better vetting procedures, all the neo con dollars. That could be used to build roads and housing in third world countries, basically similar ideals that led to America, Australia and New Zealand becoming first world countries. The money we spend on immigration would be much better spent on offering skills to people wanting to emigrate, and infrastructure. Places like PNG are begging for skills and population to kick start an economy. 

The old "teach a man to fish" Principle. 

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, docyabut2 said:

President Trump is doing a great job to make our country  safe and great again, so why don't we let just him get on with it.:) The Muslims have to stand up against their own radicals of their religion to.

If he is doing such a great job, why is he relying on Obamas intelligence to make this call? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/08/hawaii-sues-to-block-trumps-revised-travel-ban.html

That took longer than I figured it would.  It will be interesting to watch the contortions some hack Liberal judge uses to approve this.  If it stalls THIS time, Trump should roll on and push it through.  He should withhold federal dollars from any state that refuses to comply and maybe even charge their LEO's with crimes.  Federal judges have NEVER been able to veto a presidential order on national security and it damned well needs to stop now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, psyche101 said:

If he is doing such a great job, why is he relying on Obamas intelligence to make this call? 

What does one (i.e., relying on Obuma's intelligence information) have to do with the other (i.e., doing a great job)?

It would be foolish, arrogant, and wasteful not to use all available intelligence.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My next door neighbor is Texas Highway Patrol and he does a shift down at the border once a month.  Before President Trump took office, when he caught someone crossing the border he said it was like fishing...  catch and release.  I haven't talked to him recently - our schedules don't line up - but I'm interested in asking him what the protocol is now.

I wonder if all goes as Pres. Trump has planned, what the impact down here will be.  At Christmas, it's labor exclusively from "south-of-the-border" who puts up the lights on all the homes.  Almost everyone has a "Spanish-only" speaking cleaning lady...  same goes for lawn care (except me, I like to do it myself) and construction labor.  In fact, it's quite hilarious listening to people on the phone trying to speak to their cleaning lady...  "wait, what? ventana... no, the blinds...  dust the blinds".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.