or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Why Hillary will be the next POTUS
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why Hillary will be the next POTUS - Page 105

post #1561 of 3333
Quote:
Originally Posted by zalb916 View Post

Um, okay. You are certainly entitled to your beliefs.

Eisenhower also felt pretty strongly about refugees. On signing the Refugee Relief Act:

"In enacting this legislation, we are giving a new chance in life to 214,000 fellow humans. This action demonstrates again America's traditional concern for the homeless, the persecuted and the less fortunate of other lands."

Of course, this could have been code for cheap labor and votes.

Other than saying "a republican did it too," I missed the part of your post where you highlighted the unique value a person from Afghanistan provides that outweighs the 49 people murdered in an Orlando nightclub by the son of an immigrant from Afghanistan. Could you just copy and paste that part and omit the rest?
post #1562 of 3333
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post


Other than saying "a republican did it too," I missed the part of your post where you highlighted the unique value a person from Afghanistan provides that outweighs the 49 people murdered in an Orlando nightclub by the son of an immigrant from Afghanistan. Could you just copy and paste that part and omit the rest?

 

You missed the point. The U.S. refugee policy, which is long-established and traditionally has been supported by people across the political spectrum, has not been about finding the unique value of a person. The value is about providing humanitarian relief to those facing persecution in their countries of origin. The entire premise of your argument doesn't make sense.

post #1563 of 3333
Thread Starter 
Eisenhower also was in power during Operation Wetback, no? I think estimates are between 1-1.5 million deportations? And the RR Act was vastly displaced Europeans, no? Just a little racism maybe? And certainly nothing to do with exploding goat fuckers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zalb916 View Post

Um, okay. You are certainly entitled to your beliefs.

Eisenhower also felt pretty strongly about refugees. On signing the Refugee Relief Act:

"In enacting this legislation, we are giving a new chance in life to 214,000 fellow humans. This action demonstrates again America's traditional concern for the homeless, the persecuted and the less fortunate of other lands."

Of course, this could have been code for cheap labor and votes.
The point of our refugee policy is to provide humanitarian relief to the people who face persecution from the "backward goatfuckers who are prone to explode," not to accept the "backward goatfuckers who are prone to explode" doing the persecution. You may disagree with the policy. That's fine. However, it's pretty naive to think our current policy targets the people fucking, as opposed to the people getting fucked.
post #1564 of 3333
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirReveller View Post

Tempting to vote libertarian if it weren't so dangerous (now, anyway) to *not* vote Hillary. I guess better than abstaining provided you knew H-> was a lock.

Yes, because it's now independents' job to vote against their conscience and rescue the system from the calamity the Democrats were active participants in creating.

Just vote for them this time, and next time will totally be the one where they decide to deign to let people outside the "mainstream" colluders' parties have a voice.
post #1565 of 3333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Eisenhower also was in power during Operation Wetback, no? I think estimates are between 1-1.5 million deportations? And the RR Act was vastly displaced Europeans, no? Just a little racism maybe? And certainly nothing to do with exploding goat fuckers.

 

Yes, Eisenhower was in power during Operation Wetback, which was a program to address illegal border crossings and illegal alien Mexicans. I'm not sure what that program has to do with refugee policy, though. That's my exact point. People, like suited, seem not to recognize that our immigration policy is multi-faceted and conflate refugees with migrants. They are not the same, and the U.S. does not treat them the same.

 

I get it. I'm familiar with the Piobaire point-out-the-hypocrisy line of argument. "Look! Eisenhower didn't like Mexicans!" That really means nothing in terms of the United States' longstanding commitment to refugees, though.

 

The Refugee Relief Act definitely targeted Europeans and had nothing to do with exploding goat fuckers. Twenty to thirty years after the Refugee Relief Act, the U.S. was taking in a lot of Asian refugees. In the 80s, there were a good number of Latin American refugees. World crises change. The United States also has had a history of fearing refugees and acting hostile towards them, and, as you pointed out, U.S. refugee policy have definitely favored certain groups of people over others. That's been consistent over the years.

 

Our refugee policies have been flawed for many years. They currently continue to be flawed. They definitely have favored certain groups and often are utilized to make political statements. I would never argue otherwise and don't think our refugee policies are necessarily appropriate now. That's not the point, though. The point is that our immigration policy contains humanitarian motivations. It's not purely "what value does each person add." Flawed policy doesn't invalidate the policy entirely. Critique away about the policy. Suited and others just should understand what the policy actually is first.

post #1566 of 3333
Thread Starter 
Conflation is nothing new and it rather seems "migrant" and "refugee" is being used interchangeably at the moment with regards to Syria.

Also, if memory serves, the folks Eisenhower let in went through a fairly active screening process. I could be wrong as I really don't care that much about refugees under him though but I think screening is one of the current issues?

I agree, US immigration policy for the most part has little to do with matching current US society needs with the skills of the immigrants/refugees.

Humanitarian efforts are to be commended, IMO, but turning a blind eye to possible bad seeds is naive in a way we can no longer afford to be. That's what is missing in comparing prior waves of refugees to today: the world has changed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zalb916 View Post

Yes, Eisenhower was in power during Operation Wetback, which was a program to address illegal border crossings and illegal alien Mexicans. I'm not sure what that program has to do with refugee policy, though. That's my exact point. People, like suited, seem not to recognize that our immigration policy is multi-faceted and conflate refugees with migrants. They are not the same, and the U.S. does not treat them the same.

I get it. I'm familiar with the Piobaire point-out-the-hypocrisy line of argument. "Look! Eisenhower didn't like Mexicans!" That really means nothing in terms of the United States' longstanding commitment to refugees, though.

The Refugee Relief Act definitely targeted Europeans and had nothing to do with exploding goat fuckers. Twenty to thirty years after the Refugee Relief Act, the U.S. was taking in a lot of Asian refugees. In the 80s, there were a good number of Latin American refugees. World crises change. The United States also has had a history of fearing refugees and acting hostile towards them, and, as you pointed out, U.S. refugee policy have definitely favored certain groups of people over others. That's been consistent over the years.

Our refugee policies have been flawed for many years. They currently continue to be flawed. They definitely have favored certain groups and often are utilized to make political statements. I would never argue otherwise and don't think our refugee policies are necessarily appropriate now. That's not the point, though. The point is that our immigration policy contains humanitarian motivations. It's not purely "what value does each person add." Flawed policy doesn't invalidate the policy entirely. Critique away about the policy. Suited and others just should understand what the policy actually is first.
post #1567 of 3333
Quote:
Originally Posted by zalb916 View Post

You missed the point. The U.S. refugee policy, which is long-established and traditionally has been supported by people across the political spectrum, has not been about finding the unique value of a person. The value is about providing humanitarian relief to those facing persecution in their countries of origin. The entire premise of your argument doesn't make sense.

The U.S. government doesn't have an obligation to protect a random person in Afghanistan or Syria. It does have an explicit obligation to protect its own citizens. Why is providing relief to people in another part of the world more important than protecting our own citizens?

What you've communicated is that the policy probably isn't good for us, but we should just do it anyway because it makes us feel good.
post #1568 of 3333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Also, if memory serves, the folks Eisenhower let in went through a fairly active screening process. I could be wrong as I really don't care that much about refugees under him though but I think screening is one of the current issues?

 

The amount of screening that a refugee currently undergoes is way more extensive than it was under Eisenhower. Setting aside any policy considerations, it should be painfully obvious just based on technological advances that we can screen better. Taking into account policy considerations, our screening is much more comprehensive, because we are more wary of nefarious motivations (i.e. terrorism) than we previously were.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Humanitarian efforts are to be commended, IMO, but turning a blind eye to possible bad seeds is naive in a way we can no longer afford to be. That's what is missing in comparing prior waves of refugees to today: the world has changed.

 

The U.S. is incredibly wary of bad seeds. I work in national security policy and deal extensively with issues directly related to this. I am quite familiar with what the refugee process entails. The notion that we are turning blind eyes to bad seeds is laughable. Can the process improve? Definitely. Are there very legitimate critiques to be made of our policies, in general? Of course. Does the process fail sometimes? Yep. However, what is naive is not recognizing that our refugee policies have evolved with the changing world.

post #1569 of 3333
Well I would comment that providing immediate shelter in order to save lives is a good policy , yet we did not grant Sudanese people or Darfur people shelter. Those are the cases where people are stateless and due to racial ethnic origin cannot be resettled in their region under UN or any other humanitarian arrangement (which imo is always preferable to importing people to US). Yet, we let them be killed.
In 40 years of refugee policy US granted refugee status to 3,252,493 almost one third is from Europe, so US refugee program is more of a political circus than a real resettlement effort. 40 years = 3 millions. How many millions of illegal and legal immigrants have been resettled in US during the same 40 years?
Give me you poor blah blah blah. US immigration primarily based on a premise of "If you feel you are poor come to America to become rich", this is the main message that makes all 3rd worlders so eager to come to US. So , US mostly admits economic immigrants and then subjects them to significant exploitation to benefit their elite, while of course doing its best to pretend that we are the light of liberty in the dark World.
post #1570 of 3333
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post


The U.S. government doesn't have an obligation to protect a random person in Afghanistan or Syria. It does have an explicit obligation to protect its own citizens. Why is providing relief to people in another part of the world more important than protecting our own citizens?

 

This is not correct. You don't think we should have an obligation. That's fine. You are entitled to that opinion. It's not unreasonable. However, again, before you critique, you should know what you are talking about. The U.S. government very much has an explicit obligation. It's the law, and it's called the United States Refugee Act of 1980:

 

"The Congress declares that it is the historic policy of the United States to respond to the urgent needs of persons subject to persecution in their homelands, including, where appropriate, humanitarian assistance for their care and maintenance in asylum areas, efforts to promote opportunities for resettlement or voluntary repatriation, aid for necessary transportation and processing, admission to this country of refugees of special humanitarian concern to the United States, and transitional assistance to refugees in the United States."

http://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/96/212.pdf

 

You may be raising points about whether this still should be the law or how we implement the law, but it doesn't negate that the obligation actually exists.

post #1571 of 3333
Thread Starter 
All this is good to hear; thanks for sharing it with us from your insider's perspective.

Again, from your insider's perspective, what do you feel are the biggest legit critiques on policy and implementation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by zalb916 View Post

The amount of screening that a refugee currently undergoes is way more extensive than it was under Eisenhower. Setting aside any policy considerations, it should be painfully obvious just based on technological advances that we can screen better. Taking into account policy considerations, our screening is much more comprehensive, because we are more wary of nefarious motivations (i.e. terrorism) than we previously were.


The U.S. is incredibly wary of bad seeds. I work in national security policy and deal extensively with issues directly related to this. I am quite familiar with what the refugee process entails. The notion that we are turning blind eyes to bad seeds is laughable. Can the process improve? Definitely. Are there very legitimate critiques to be made of our policies, in general? Of course. Does the process fail sometimes? Yep. However, what is naive is not recognizing that our refugee policies have evolved with the changing world.
post #1572 of 3333
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post

Yes, because it's now independents' job to vote against their conscience and rescue the system from the calamity the Democrats were active participants in creating.

Just vote for them this time, and next time will totally be the one where they decide to deign to let people outside the "mainstream" colluders' parties have a voice.

You can vote third party and sleep better at night, but it really is throwing your vote away. A third party vote has the same impact on the results of the election as a non-vote. If you're trying to "send a message," it's a message that the major parties can safely ignore. What did the impactful third party candidacies of Perot and Nader actually change in the long run?
post #1573 of 3333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van Veen View Post


You can vote third party and sleep better at night, but it really is throwing your vote away. A third party vote has the same impact on the results of the election as a non-vote. If you're trying to "send a message," it's a message that the major parties can safely ignore. What did the impactful third party candidacies of Perot and Nader actually change in the long run?

 

Well, Perot's candidacy increased the discussion about international trade and balancing the budget.  Nader certainly threw Gore off the deep end who became all about environmentalism issues (or at least preaching about it).

post #1574 of 3333
^ This
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van Veen View Post

You can vote third party and sleep better at night, but it really is throwing your vote away. A third party vote has the same impact on the results of the election as a non-vote. If you're trying to "send a message," it's a message that the major parties can safely ignore. What did the impactful third party candidacies of Perot and Nader actually change in the long run?

If this is true, why is every pro-Clinton voter I know trying to convince the world that not voting third party is a moral imperative? It seems to me that this is the first election in my voting lifetime where the parties have openly acknowledged that the decision whether or not to vote third party does matter.

It's precisely this sort of glib dismissal that props up the status quo and prevents real change in our political system. Devaluing the voices of those who criticize your club is quite an effective way to make sure you stay in power.
post #1575 of 3333

I'm openly voting for Gary Johnson.  Even if he loses and even if Hillary/Trump/Zorp wins, perhaps it will push one of the parties to go "look there was 10% out there that could have swung the election.  Perhaps we should look at modifying our platform to get that group."

 

Plus, there's always the chance that Gary Johnson can win a couple small states like Wyoming or New Mexico (where he was a popular Republican governor) and prevent either one from getting a majority of the electoral votes.  That would make the House decide, and besides the entertainment value, I can imagine they will come up with a better option than what we can vote from the Rs and Ds.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Why Hillary will be the next POTUS