Yes, I am. I don't see what that has to do with anything. Most of the countries in the Visa Waiver program are European, and none are Middle Eastern.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple CEO Tim Cook on Immigration Executive Order: 'It is Not a Policy We Support'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, it really isn't simply about losing the election.
The Democrats have lost many elections before now, so that losing the election isn't the issue.
The issue is that the US now has a President who seems woefully unqualified and wholly unsuitable for the job at hand.
You can disagree about Hillary's policies, just as I could disagree with the policies of previous Republican candidates.
But the fact remains that Trump is unqualified in ways that past Republican and Democrat candidates were not.
Yep, I can see how you feel its a real rag to enforce the law of the land. Me, I'm tired of certain political believers having carte blanche to break the law whenever they feel like it.
Two things. There are many proponents of open borders; that means anyone who wants to can come. The net result of that would of course be tens of millions of people flooding into the US, and eventually hundreds of millions would come from the world. So, if you don't favor open borders, then you have to accept that you do favor denying entry to people; it's just a matter of degree. President Obama favored denying entry to most people, President Clinton did, President Bush, and so on, including President Trump. Interestingly, but not widely reported, President Trump has set limits higher than President Bush. Oh, and just before he left office, President Obama made it harder for Cubans to enter the US. Didn't see any reports of people disrupting airports then, or Canada's PM stating that they would be glad to take them in immediately.
I'm not sure that argument stands up. Of course you can't have open borders, and unchecked immigration. There clearly has to be some sort of vetting process / criteria met / limits adhered to. The point isn't that under any President most people wouldn't get in. The point is that, really, the vetting / criteria should be applied universally.
I think the Cuba thing is a red herring - he didn't so much make it harder for Cubans, and just stop it being easier for Cubans.
Last edited:
So when does the statute of limitations begin for hate based on what happened in the past?
We actually have good relations with Vietnam now because their leaders were smart enough to realize that the past shouldn't color the present.
Germany and Israel are allies.
Jews don't hate every country that abused them because they are smart enough to look forward.
Also, it isn't the people of Iran who hate us, it's the autocratic regime in power that hates us.They overthrew a dictator for a far worse regime and most realize this.
Ask the average Iranian is their religious rulers are scum and murderous and I guarantee that the vast majority would agree.
"White House discussing asking foreign visitors for social media info and cell phone contacts
Miller also noted on Saturday that Trump administration officials are discussing the possibility of asking foreign visitors to disclose all websites and social media sites they visit, and to share the contacts in their cell phones. If the foreign visitor declines to share such information, he or she could be denied entry."
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/29/p...grant-policy-social-media-contacts/index.html
Yup... definitely not going to do business oversees before the decision has been made.
Miller also noted on Saturday that Trump administration officials are discussing the possibility of asking foreign visitors to disclose all websites and social media sites they visit, and to share the contacts in their cell phones. If the foreign visitor declines to share such information, he or she could be denied entry."
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/29/p...grant-policy-social-media-contacts/index.html
Yup... definitely not going to do business oversees before the decision has been made.
So you admit you would deny entry to people who want to come here. Welcome to the heartless, un-American group. You'll have to get ready to explain why you hate the folks you won't let in.
We're making progress. Now if we could just get you to admit that stating "stopping making it easier, doesn't make it harder" is evidence of tortured reasoning desperately seeking to justify your bias, i.e., in your zeal to condemn DT, you won't admit to yourself that BO didn't have any universal criteria to vet people who wanted to get here. At various times, favored the better educated, people from certain countries, people who were wealthier, etc., as have all administrations. You are blinded by your hatred of all things DT to see clearly and be objective. I have been one of his strongest critics on many positions he has taken, but what's destroyed civil discourse in this country and what is splitting us apart are people being led about by hate mongers who have political and other agendas. (not referring to you)
That doesn't fit fake narrative that Trump is a fascist dictator/Nazi so...
Man, the bias and distortions never end, or maybe it's more appropriate to call you out for deliberately trying to deceive the other people on this forum. I say that because in your zeal to bash the current president, you omitted from the very same article the following:
Already, Politico reported in December, the US government had quietly begun asking that foreign visitors provide their social media accounts voluntarily. Yup, while the current president is simply discussing it, the previous president had already begun doing it. And, of course, "quietly" done by President Obama simply means the media decided not to highlight it as part of an anti-foreigner hysteria.
Thanks for the link. As it points out:
Since Tuesday, foreign travelers arriving in the United States on the visa waiver program have been presented with an “optional” request to “enter information associated with your online presence,” a government official confirmed Thursday.The prompt includes a drop-down menu that lists platforms including Facebook, Google+, Instagram, LinkedIn and YouTube, as well as a space for users to input their account names on those sites.
Previously, (DHS) had said it wouldn't prohibit entry to foreigners who didn’t provide their social media account information.
Trump OTOH:
Trump administration officials are discussing the possibility of asking foreign visitors to disclose all websites and social media sites they visit, and to share the contacts in their cell phones. If the foreign visitor declines to share such information, he or she could be denied entry.
Not quite the same thing. Facts are a tough thing.
Ok, things are not black and white and that might be true. But, IF the phone checking had started without a warning - and mandatory last year, I'd have turned back home. Applying the new rule that nullified Visas and Green Cards without a warning while passenger were traveling in planes shows I can't trust the current regime a bit and will stay at home. You can play in your sandbox until things become clearer and international deals are respected.
While you are absolutely and completely out-to-lunch on your Apple Pay commentary ... MAN ...
you are running red-hot and spot-on with your "defence" of President Trump's 120-day temporary halt EO.
Last edited:
How utterly absurd. I would urge anybody thinking of visiting America in the near future to simply not bother. Forcing people to submit their social media activity? How is that even enforceable?
Trump certainly is marketing fear very well.
While I disagree that you have any reasonable fear, e.g., the Visa and green card problem was a misunderstanding that has been corrected and is not a problem as DHS has made clear, and was an "unforced error" that could have been avoided with better planning, I appreciate your reflecting and thoughtful reply. Merci.
[doublepost=1485813147][/doublepost]
Red, if only President Trump would outsource the screening to the best security company around -Apple Pay, we would have more secure borders. (Think about it, secure tokens, touch ID)
(On a side note, I am not trying to defend the President's EO, which I think was well-intentioned but clumsily implemented, I am trying to address the blatant hypocrisy and dishonesty about his efforts to control both legal and illegal immigration.)Facts are not just a tough thing, they are everything. And you are misreporting this. You are presenting what Pres Obama, (I noticed you wouldn't associate his name with the program he started to collect social media information, but you did associate Pres Trump with a program that is only being contemplated.) actually did as OK, but what Pres Trump is only discussing.
So, despite your efforts to obfuscate, we still end up with you being cool with President Obama starting an actual collection of social media information from foreign visitors (a good idea I might add and was done in response to the social media information that was available and might have saved so many lives in San Bernardino), but you are hating on President Trump for merely discussing the possibility of collecting information that if the person refuses to give, they might be denied entry. And you wonder why most folks think there is tremendous hypocrisy and no credibility in that approach that you and much of the media is following?
I also have to ask, how would you explain your opposition to what President Trump is contemplating to the the families of all those slaughtered in San Bernardino? What would you say? It's not fair to check to see if people who want to come to the US have posted on a social media site that they encourage the murder of Americans? That they plan on slaughtering children is something we don't have the right to know? Inquiring minds want to know
The President is Commander In Chief, his job is to protect the American public and for the first time in a long long time that's what he is doing.
I disagree with not letting in those who already have Green Cards and Visas but we have already let in hundreds if not thousands of Muslims who do not like the West, Christians, or Jews and the FBI is constantly having to perform daily surveillance on these people and if he has to ruffle a few feathers to keep out the trash I'm all for it.
Go ask many European countries if they are happy with all the people they let in trying to be nice.
Being nice can get you killed.
I disagree with not letting in those who already have Green Cards and Visas but we have already let in hundreds if not thousands of Muslims who do not like the West, Christians, or Jews and the FBI is constantly having to perform daily surveillance on these people and if he has to ruffle a few feathers to keep out the trash I'm all for it.
Go ask many European countries if they are happy with all the people they let in trying to be nice.
Being nice can get you killed.
First you assume that a statement of facts represents a position. As I pointed out, the key difference, despite many trying to equate the two, is one was voluntary and stated refusal would not be a reason to deny entry while the other stated refusal could be used to deny entry.
First I'd say we certainly need to have a good vetting process and a reasonable discussion on how that works. Second, we need to end the easy access to weapons in this country; why should anyone be able to get a weapon without going through a stringent vetting process to ensure they do not have nefarious intent? Shouldn't we check their social media posts to see if the plan on murdering Americans and slaughtering kids. Surely if you agree it's important in the former case how can you tell them it's not in the latter? After all, many of the terrorist acts in the US were committed by citizens who purchased a weapon that they used in the attack with only a minimal vetting. Checking social media when the San Bernardino killer bought them may have saved many lives as well. Isn't that a good place to make America Safe Again?