Racist tweet by Trump re future immigration to the US

[Bajo_cero2]

Moderated Muslims? What's that? To the extent Muslims reject the tenets of their faith they are apostates and you know what the punishment of apostasy is under sharia law? Death. Similarly, blasphemy (criticizing the prophet or the Koran or the faith) is a capital offense. Now, if a person born into the faith renounces these kinds of barbaric ethics, then I treat them as I would any other rational being.

http://gees.org/articulos/que-es-un-musulman-moderado

 

[Bajo_cero2]

I don't know about the comparative levels of education between Arg and USA, but based upon your post # 6 above I suggest your brain power may also be similar to that of Homer. I offered this logical fallacy:
"I hate A and B. A and B are letters ergo I hate all letters", to which you replied:
"Of course, it is called logic, part of a rational thinking..."

Perhaps you do not know, I asume you do not, but in the continental law system judges has to explain why they decide in a way, and not other, using the “sound rational critic” that you described in your sentence without realizing it. So, this is “part of the rational [legal] thinking (logic plus rules of the experience). if you come from a country where judges do not have to explain the process of the desicion making and where arbitrariness reigns, well...that explains a lot.

Besides you clumpsy attemp of insulting me, the educational level in Argentina is very good while as I stated before, while they do not know how to add and substract in Upstate NY so I guess that the worst enemy of the US is the President because you need of the immigrants who has a proper massive education in other countries.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

I do not like people who adhere to these mores.

I do not like neither extremist catholic and protestants among others.

 

[Ries]

as someone who has never had any religious affilliation, I find little distinction, historically, in terms of owning slaves, abuse of women, polygamy, religious persecution on non-believers, and so on, between christians and mulims. Both have multiple sects, and while some are relatively tolerant, both have, for centuries, tortured, killed, and started holy wars, not just against other religions, but against other sects within their own.

 

[julian63]

as someone who has never had any religious affilliation, I find little distinction, historically, in terms of owning slaves, abuse of women, polygamy, religious persecution on non-believers, and so on, between christians and mulims. Both have multiple sects, and while some are relatively tolerant, both have, for centuries, tortured, killed, and started holy wars, not just against other religions, but against other sects within their own.

...and today? See https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/01/yemen-bahai-sentenced-to-death-for-insulting-islam-and-apostasy
and http://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/nation/2018/01/13/man-quran-defamation-facebook/

 

[citygirl]

No, I didn't know that no "unvetted" Muslims or others were "ever" allowed into the US for immigration or visiting purposes, but it does surprise me. Do you really mean to say "ever?" Ellis Island, included? If so, how do you define vetting?
If you say it takes a year to get "vetted for immigration purposes" (i.e., permanent residence) for visitors from European countries, Canada, So Am, etc. I am, indeed, surprised. Ditto for the even longer vetting duration period for refugees. Does that vetting process occur while such persons are in the US on a temporary visa?

Well, I do believe that even in Ellis Island, they were interviewed A quick google says that as far back as 1882, potential immigrants were being vetted and denied entry based on background (i.e., criminal convictions)

I am not surprised you are surprised by the time period, very few people from the US have any idea of the immigration process. However, surprised or not, that is the actual time period. When I began the process in August of 17, the expected wait was 9 months for "easy countries" like Argentina. It took us just shy of a year and those applying later than me were expecting even longer delays. Some people may enter the US as a short-term visitor while you're waiting for you immigrant visa to go through the process (in which case you are still subject to background checks before being authorized to enter.) Many don't because you have a high chance of being refused. And yes, even visa-waiver country applicants must have a background check prior to being admitted.

Countries with a high rate of visa fraud/visa denial/middle eastern countries have a much longer wait.

In re refugees: this should help. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/29/us/refugee-vetting-process.html

 

[citygirl]

Were these policies about which you complain enacted during Trump's administration or prior ones? Are you referring to immigrants from a particular country? If so, which?

Not sure which policies you think I'm complaining about? I am simply outlining the long-standing policies which are global in nature. IE - Whether you are applying from Haiti or the UK, you pay the same visa application fees. In fact, it's higher for many "poor" countries as they must submit hard copies of all their papwerork. You know how much Fedex costs?! And yes, same for the sponsor salary requirements, also global in nature.

And no, those aren't Trump policies. The policy has been in place for a long period of time. I will say, it's become even more stringent with Trump IME. When we applied, we used our assets (which were a factor of many more than required) in lieu of salary. We were still required to get a co-sponsor with a verifiable salary on top of using our assets even though that is in violation of the official policy. We were informed that was a request by the current administration, i.e. making it still more difficult for those without substantial resources.

 

[rcrt]

I think there ought to be limits to free speech. There should be cultural conventions that prohibit or disincentivize speaking authoritatively on subjects you aren't an expert on. The internet has given people the false impression that they are informed on a topic such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, when they don't speak Farsi, can't name a single newspaper from the country, have never been within 2,000 kilometers of Tehran, but then those same uninformed people turn around and post their hot take on it and, next thing you know, their bloviating has become canon. Perhaps Trump is the logical conclusion of this "amateur hour" effect. You can bet that more than half of the people who agree that Haiti is a shithole can't even point to it on a map. We are truly in the age of the idiot.

 

[julian63]

I think there ought to be limits to free speech. There should be cultural conventions that prohibit or disincentivize speaking authoritatively on subjects you aren't an expert on. The internet has given people the false impression that they are informed on a topic such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, when they don't speak Farsi, can't name a single newspaper from the country, have never been within 2,000 kilometers of Tehran, but then those same uninformed people turn around and post their hot take on it and, next thing you know, their bloviating has become canon. Perhaps Trump is the logical conclusion of this "amateur hour" effect. You can bet that more than half of the people who agree that Haiti is a shithole can't even point to it on a map. We are truly in the age of the idiot.

Interesting. You think there should be limits on free speech? Who sets the limits?
p.s. Out of curiosity, where are you from? Iran?
p.p.s. Your premise is wrong. One doesn't need to be sick in order to be a doctor. Likewise , one need not necessarily be able to speak Farsi, etc to know about Iran.
p.p.p.s. Even if the internet has allowed inaccurate info as well good info to be widely disseminated, only a fool would think of addressing the problem by limiting free speech.

 

[jeff1234]

rcrt said:
"I think there ought to be limits to free speech. There should be cultural conventions that prohibit or disincentivize speaking authoritatively on subjects you aren't an expert on. The internet has given people the false impression that they are informed on a topic such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, when they don't speak Farsi, can't name a single newspaper from the country, have never been within 2,000 kilometers of Tehran, but then those same uninformed people turn around and post their hot take on it and, next thing you know, their bloviating has become canon. Perhaps Trump is the logical conclusion of this "amateur hour" effect. You can bet that more than half of the people who agree that Haiti is a shithole can't even point to it on a map. We are truly in the age of the idiot."

RCRT, a course in American Government would be very helpful for you.

I'd like to say that you are completely wrong but I'll go with you're 98% wrong.

First, until recently the various bodies of American Government executed their roles of 'checks and balances' well. The somehow, about the time that George W. Bush decided to attack Iraq, Congress and the the fourth estate (the news media) abandoned their role of asking serious questions and searching for the truth. Without them the US is rudderless.

Secondly, in reading your comments I do agree that "We are truly in the age of the idiot."