You don't think he will extend it at the end of those 90 days? You really think his base would be satisfied with a temporary ban like that? Time will tell.
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 Considering Legal Options Against Immigration Executive Order
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You don't think he will extend it at the end of those 90 days? You really think his base would be satisfied with a temporary ban like that? Time will tell.
As long as vetting procedures are put in place, it's fine to remove the ban. If they can't figure out how to vet them, then keep it in place until there are.
Could be worse. We could put all of the refugees on a remote island like Australia does.
We'll see what happens. I wouldn't be surprised if we get a vague excuse like "We took the time to investigate, and they're all dangerous!" at which point the bans become permanent, or at least open ended. Taking the 90 days thing at face value seems very naive.
George W. Bush declared a temporary State of emergency after 9/11 for six months. It lasted eight years until Obama arrived, and then he renewed it... let's see how temporary is mr. Trump's' EO.
And what would the majority know? We can see how easily mislead they can be. Despite the win, less than half of the UK Population voted for Brexit. Also there was overwhelmingly (in England) a case of the places that don't actually have much immigration voting against the scary other. The places that were best placed to understand what having immigrants around means - voted remain.
I never claimed there were *no* issues, just that they're misrepresented.
Farage and co have been peddling the same brand of FUD that Trump has, and it's very easy to appeal to fear. Their months long campaign was largely lies and fearmongering.
I don't think the UK has the space or resources to deal with everyone, haha. This sort of thing has to be done in a balanced, thoughtful way that allows for a secure and happy society. The US has a huge amount of space and money.
Trump supported the Russian bombing of Syria. Then blocks all refugees from Syria. Then called refugees illegal immigrants.
Worst. "Christian". Ever.
OMG YES! THERE'S NO TIME FOR THINKING RATIONALLY, WE GOTTA GET THE BAD GUYS NOW!
A great way to get people to do exactly what you want is to insist that there's bad thing, and there's no time to explain, but you just have to take the exact course of action they prescribe in order to protect against bad thing, because you don't want bad thing to happen, do you?
Except there are already extensive vetting procedures in place for refugees entering the country. Stopping the whole mechanism dead in its tracks for 90 days isn't going to help. It is, however, going to royally screw up the lives of a bunch of innocent people. But any action is reasonable, if it saves just one innocent life, right? Great, if we agree on that, let's start by rounding up all the guns in private hands - that's would save over 30,000 lives per year (oh, sure, it goes against the constitution, but I don't see that as much of a challenge for Mr. Trump, besides, if it saves just one innocent life...). Then, let's ban private cars, and switch over to public transportation. That would save, again, over 30,000 lives per year. Sure, it'd throw a lot of innocent people's lives into turmoil, temporarily, but it's worth it in order to prevent all those deaths, right? And just these two measures can save over 60,000 lives that are being lost every year. That's hundreds of times more lives than are being lost to terrorism here in the US every year.
Yes, there are certainly some people chanting Death to America in those countries. There are also people chanting that in other countries that we're not blocking immigration from. Why is that? There are groups of people here in this country chanting "Death to gays". Should we be restricting their travel as well?
Do you think everyone in those countries is chanting Death to America? Has it occurred to you that maybe a lot of the people there, who are refugees looking to escape to the US want to leave there specifically because they don't like or agree with the people that are chanting Death to America?
Irrelevant statistics? Hardly - I was responding to someone who was asked for a list of attacks performed by people from the 7 countries affected by the current ban, and he confidently named 3 recent attacks... except 2 of those three were not carried out by people from the affected countries. This highlights something happening all too often here, advocating actions based on fear and misinformation, rather than on facts. Your reply largely does the same.
We do have a substantial problem in the US with terrorists who are plotting together, who are building and using bombs to kill groups of innocent people, who are trying to build or obtain weapons of mass destruction (dirty bombs, chemical weapons and such) to kill more innocents, who are assassinating government officials and law enforcement officers, and trying to spread terror to further their cause.
Only they might not be the terrorists you're thinking of - they're white supremacists, neo-nazis, militias, and the far right, and they've been targeting blacks, jews, muslims, hispanics, healthcare clinics, law enforcement, and government officials, for decades.
Try reading this list from the Southern Poverty Law Center that summarizes hundreds of such domestic terrorism attacks, and numerous foiled plots, over the past almost 22 years since home-grown US right-wing terrorists detonated a 7,000-pound truck bomb in Oklahoma City taking out an entire building, killing 168 people and injuring 500. The list does not have much hyperbole, it simply gives a brief description of each incident and the results.
The far right terrorists in the US do have one decided change in tactics when compared to the middle eastern terrorists though - where the various middle eastern groups are usually quick to take credit for attacks carried out by their members in far-off America, the far right terrorists in the US generally distance themselves from their terrorist organizations before carrying out an attack, specifically to avoid government retaliation against the group (this technique has been uncovered numerous times - they teach it).
And Fox News, Breitbart, and other right-leaning media (or the mainstream media, for that matter) don't go to much effort to highlight the ties between the "disgruntled lone wolfs" who carry out these attacks and the radical right hate groups they frequent. No, when white Americans carry out mass attacks, they're generally "obviously mentally ill loners", rather than "terrorists".
But, I know, all this is obviously "high school debate" - there's no time to think rationally, we must take whatever arbitrary action has been put on the table to MAKE AMERICA SAFE! There's simply no time to find out if said action is just, or likely to have any useful effect.
[doublepost=1486065848][/doublepost]
By your logic, the ban should never have been enacted in the first place, since extensive vetting procedures are already in place. Do you really think we were just letting anyone walk in?
Would you have said that to a black family refused entry to a whites-only restaurant? At what point do these issues become important enough to set aside the bag and stand up for what's right? Tomorrow it could be you not allowed back in your own country.
Do we have a spare with basic infrastructure?
[doublepost=1486093716][/doublepost]
Naive? Why? I am not seeing anything at this time that would lead me to that conclusion. Besides, these Orders are designed to be reviewed and if needed legislated against. Or via the SCOTUS route. No, don't see the "extension" game becoming much of a problem.
[doublepost=1486093763][/doublepost]
Obviously Congress agreed with it and the courts out it wouldn't have.
[doublepost=1486093977][/doublepost]
Wow. So wrong.
If you feel it can be reduced to the number of deaths you have no understanding of the issue. Seriously.
As to the extreme vetting, there currently isn't any and judging by your comment you have no idea what it really is. Google it.
Like I said, sit down, find a bag and stop hyperventilating. You lost an election. Stop acting like it's never happened before. It's gotten to the point where I can't help but just laugh at this kind of hyperbole.
Aaaahhhh! I get it now. OK, you can go back to eating the spoonfeedings of Sean Spicer and his 8-year-old boss. You're done and I'm out.
Last edited:
When the 90 days is up we'll see if the ban is allowed to expire or is extended (assuming a court order hasn't ended it before that). Time will tell.
[doublepost=1486128133][/doublepost]
I guess that answers your question. Sure seems like he would say that to that family.
Look I have memories of them doing 1:1 before which is why I asked. I said if they increased their donation scheme it is "excellent" and a truly commendable act of charity.
I agree that it's cynical but mind boggling? I follow Apple closely and I dislike that this is the situation, but I don't accept full blame. Apple and Tim Cook have cultivated an atmosphere recently of them being cheap and money hungry.
If my cynicism is misguided I'll gladly take my words back and apologise, but I haven't read the whole thread so I don't yet know what the donation scheme is.
If you have further clarification and proof I'll gladly send you a 10er.
Last edited:
My guess is its significantly less dysfunctional than you think it is. Having travelled to the US a number of times I always found it more difficult to get into than the EU, Australia, UK, Canada. (Once in the EU travel between countries is extremely easy though).
The places I found the easiest to get into were in the Caribbean when getting off a cruise ship.
However, if you believe that "protection" of the people is the highest ideal, then US citizens should be blocked from entering other countries.
You have the highest prison population in the world by head of population
Your Murder/rape/violent crime rates are much higher than other 1st world countries
Hell you even elected a sexual predator to run your country
[doublepost=1486155004][/doublepost]
Except that the terrorists came from other countries. (eg. the Boston bomber came from Kyrgyzstan, a country not on that list)
What Trump has done would be like banning all imports from Asian countries like Germany, France, Canada, UK, South Africa, Honduras, Brazil.
The most likely person to murder you is someone you know and trust, a family member, work mate, neighbour, etc.
LEOs shoot and kill more people in the USA than terrorists kill.
The total number of dead in 9/11 was 2996, where as 15,980 murders occurred in the United States in 2001
You should be more scared of US citizens than anyone else. (REAL fact, not "alternative fact").
OR, if other 1st world countries took the same paranoid view they would have to ban US citizens who's prison population is the highest in the world (by per 100,000 citizens), their crime rate is higher, violent crime is WAY higher, so is Rape, and Murder.
Nice try but it is not even close. You would be better saying he has temporarily stopped imports from these sources while working on a solution to determine who really made these so we can identify if the "ingredients" are human safe going forward. A waiver process does exist for exceptions.
The exemptions are based on where his mates import oil from or where he has hotels.
If he had an honest intentions at protecting US citizens from terrorists he would have banned people from Saudi Arabia.
For example Osama Bin Laden was a Saudi, and he master minded the 9/11 attacks.
So my example is a perfect parallel to Trumps decision making processes.... 100% inept, based on zero facts or rational thought.
And maybe he will. However, once again you miss the point of the Order. This applied to seven countries Obama's staff (not Trump's)identified where we have no vetting information and the governments are totally uncooperative in that endeavor. Like I said, I don't think you understand the cause.
The whole thing is solved by allowing those with approved Visas to move about the country. I'd imagine if those ass hats had approved his cabinet instead of having a temper tantrum over losing an election he'd have had better counsel and removed those parts anyway, but hey, Chucky needed to cry.
Cue the whining from the left demanding impeachment while ignoring Obamas unconstitutional appointments...which was incredibly dangerous compared to ticking off a few migrant workers.
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/ja...recess-appointments-unconstitutional-20130125
[doublepost=1486183432][/doublepost]
No, they are based on the visa waiver program. Hey, thanks for playing though.
No, I never said that. Maybe You shouldn't read into things that much. But I'm sure you stand up for every single act of injustice right?? Btw, I'm not worried about a German party coming for me, but thanks anyway.
"Most of the protesters aren't even affected by this and just want something to complain about."
It really reads, without much wiggle room, like you disapprove of someone protesting unless it affects them.
I also wonder if you have data on that "most" part. "Most" is at a minimum >50%, but I'd need it to be more than a simple majority to feel like "most." Where did you get these data?
So you're still reading into my post huh?! Whatever amuses you I guess. You should probably stop "wondering" unless you have proof that "most" of the protesters are affected by the ban, and not just complaining? See where this is going? Nowhere. And it's pretty boring.
Dude, I never claimed to know anything about any of them. That's in your OP. I'm just saying that standing up against injustice is a good thing, whether you think it directly affects you or not. The spread of injustice eventually affects us all. Go ahead and disagree if you want. I'm out.
Standing up is fine however you need to understand what you are engaging in. Just that it is injustice is isn't enough. Understand the message before you give your support.