Then why not work with other liberals to stop sanctuary city and county? If you achieve that, next President will be a new generation liberal. Cheers!
This is the #1 political issue that affects most of the population. No other issue can be compared with this issue.
Other issue people are protesting against is actually the straw man. The real issue is sanctuary city/county and the border control. The number of people traveling from 7 countries to US is so small. The ratio of 7 country travelers in a few months to illegal immigrants is so minuscule, 0.00âŚ001?
Once illegal immigrants goes to a sanctuary city, most of them will live forever. For the citizens from the 7 countries, postponing travel by a couple of months is just temporary. The number of people affected is very small, the effect is temporary. A temporary travel ban could remind the good majority to fight against the few terrorists, it could have some positive effects while causing inconvenience to good people.
Every country has the right to approve or reject a visa application. Every day, thousands of people are rejected by US visa officers. US is a highly desirable country that many people would like to come, but it is not a place everyone can come and go freely. Nobody has a right to demand entry into a foreign country. Just like your home, you can reject visitation and the strangers have no right to force an entry into your home.
Muslim terrorists kill way more Muslims than Westerners. Except that most donât make the nightly TV news because Americans donât care. Muslims have the greatest incentive to police their own ranks. They have their own lives to protect.
So, now, we are talking relative numbers of deaths? It may have been just a really, really unfortunate accident, but Kate Steinle should not be dead right now. I donât care what anyone saysâŚ
But sorry to sound cold hearted. There is a cost and benefits analysis to everything. If you have to choose between saving 1 million foreign lives versus saving 1 American life, is the moral answer always âAmerica Firstâ?
No laws are perfect. No defense is perfect. Kate should not die. The two guys who got eaten by SF Zoo tigers should not die either. Is the answer we should not have tigers in the zoo? Or just donât have any zoo? What about that kid who got eaten by alligators in Florida? Get rid of all alligators?
Dude ,you use the worst examples. Those two dudes were not supposed to be there in the first place (broke in) and they provoked the tigers. Kate Steinle was just walking on the pier with her parents. If you canât see the difference, I am sorryâŚ
So those 2 guys are âillegal immigrantâ for the tiger land.
If the tiger is the legal resident and the 2 guys are illegal, who should have more right?
These tigers need to be educated liberals, that could avoid senseless killing. Those barbarian tigers senselessly killed the innocent guys who are just in pursuit of a better life experience. Those 2 guys are not enemy, they just want to get a better life experience. Dumb and uneducated tiger!
Tiger, stop being stupidly conservative. Do you have a warm heart and a soft spot for our innocent guys who want to go to your land illegally in order to get a better life experience?
But we are actually talking past each other. I agree with securing the border and keeping out illegal immigrants. I am very upset about Muslim ban and restriction on legal travel and immigration. And you and the other guy keep talking about illegals.
I can see why Trump win now. Illegal immigration is the most effective straw man in politics. Even though Obama deported more people than all previous presidents, Bush included, many still think the Dâs just want to open the border.
If you are upset about sanctuary city, fine. Thatâs a SF local issue. You can best effect change here locally. Call your Supervisor daily or organize protests etc. I donât have firm stand on this issue and can see merits on both sides.
You need to look at it from both sides. Although they are legal travel/immigration, who knows if these people are going back to these âterroristâ states to learn ways to kill people. I know this sounds like paranoia but this is probably the thought process behind the travel ban.
The only reason why I feel strongly against illegals, undocumented, green aliens, what-have-you, but other than bonafide US stamped citizens getting benefits in this country is because of what our ancestors had to endure to become US citizens. It is not to be taken lightly or to be given away freely as if, oh, what is the big deal. It is a big deal. US citizen is the gold standard (despite what @hanera may think but again he is hereâŚ)
The problem is that today we have a bunch of crazies wanting to bring us down. So, we should open the door and make it even easier for them (to bring us down)? No, right? Until the rest of the world gets civilized and understands that the tap is dry now and that you need to get with the program, well, we are going to keep the toys to ourselves and you gotta deal with it.
I have the opposite reaction. I am first gen immigrant and I did indeed go thru shit to become US citizen. So my though process is, hey, we should not make people like me go thru the wringer just so we can pay $$$ of tax money to Uncle Sam.
Again, on illegals, I can see the point. But on Muslim Ban, frankly I donât. There was an Iraqi guy who worked as interpreter for the US troops back in Iraq, and he was detained for hours because of the ban. Thank God to ACLU and protestors outside the airport he finally got thru. These people risked their lives for us. We should not throw them under the bus. And itâs very dangerous to tell the world you Muslims are our enemies. There are like 1.6B Muslims in the world, a quarter of worldwide population. We are much less safe today than just a few days ago.
If someone refused to let you go into his home for 2 months due to security concerns, whatâs your reactions? Are you going to kill him for rejection?
Btw, the travel ban was clarified and that green card holders are not banned.
Look, letâs bring it back home, meaning take it back to this forum about real estate. So, tell me Sir are you going to rent one of your lovely residences to an illegal who is here rightfully (in your eyes) and he perhaps makes good money? Yes or no.
You could be sued for discrimination if you reject an illegal immigrant as tenant in SF, do you?
If not, can you evict an illegal immigrant tenant based on immigration status?
On the other hand, in the deep red state, can you be sued for renting the house to illegal immigrants? Do you commit a crime of harboring illegal immigrants?
I have never asked about peopleâs immigration status. I do ask for social security number, paycheck and bank information. If they pass everything with flying colors who cares? They may as well be Martians.
Ok, that is a fair opinion. I am thinking though a lot of people are thinking the other way. If I had to go through sheet to get here, why canât they? Me, born right there in the Chinese Hospital of the Fab 7x7, baby, not Canton or Bejing or âŚ
Iâd like to encourage everyone to read Dr. Heather Richardsonâs recent FB post. She is a political historian at Boston College. There is more than unites us than divides us. Please keep your eye on Bannon regardless of your political leanings.
"I donât like to talk about politics on Facebook-- political history is my job, after all, and you are my friends-- but there is an important non-partisan point to make today.
What Bannon is doing, most dramatically with last nightâs ban on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries-- is creating what is known as a âshock event.â Such an event is unexpected and confusing and throws a society into chaos. People scramble to react to the event, usually along some fault line that those responsible for the event can widen by claiming that they alone know how to restore order. When opponents speak out, the authors of the shock event call them enemies. As society reels and tempers run high, those responsible for the shock event perform a sleight of hand to achieve their real goal, a goal they know to be hugely unpopular, but from which everyone has been distracted as they fight over the initial event. There is no longer concerted opposition to the real goal; opposition divides along the partisan lines established by the shock event.
Last nightâs Executive Order has all the hallmarks of a shock event. It was not reviewed by any governmental agencies or lawyers before it was released, and counterterrorism experts insist they did not ask for it. People charged with enforcing it got no instructions about how to do so. Courts immediately have declared parts of it unconstitutional, but border police in some airports are refusing to stop enforcing it.
Predictably, chaos has followed and tempers are hot.
My point today is this: unless you are the person setting it up, it is in no oneâs interest to play the shock event game. It is designed explicitly to divide people who might otherwise come together so they cannot stand against something its authors think they wonât like. I donât know what Bannon is up to-- although I have some guesses-- but because I know Bannonâs ideas well, I am positive that there is not a single person whom I consider a friend on either side of the aisle-- and my friends range pretty widely-- who will benefit from whatever it is. If the shock event strategy works, though, many of you will blame each other, rather than Bannon, for the fallout. And the country will have been tricked into accepting their real goal.
But because shock events destabilize a society, they can also be used positively. We do not have to respond along old fault lines. We could just as easily reorganize into a different pattern that threatens the people who sparked the event. A successful shock event depends on speed and chaos because it requires knee-jerk reactions so that people divide along established lines. This, for example, is how Confederate leaders railroaded the initial southern states out of the Union. If people realize they are being played, though, they can reach across old lines and reorganize to challenge the leaders who are pulling the strings. This was Lincolnâs strategy when he joined together Whigs, Democrats, Free-Soilers, anti-Nebraska voters, and nativists into the new Republican Party to stand against the Slave Power. Five years before, such a coalition would have been unimaginable. Members of those groups agreed on very little other than that they wanted all Americans to have equal economic opportunity. Once they began to work together to promote a fair economic system, though, they found much common ground. They ended up rededicating the nation to a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people.â
Confederate leaders and Lincoln both knew about the political potential of a shock event. As we are in the midst of one, it seems worth noting that Lincoln seemed to have the better idea about how to use it.â