Reince Priebus: ‘We’re not going to have a registry based on a religion’
30 replies, posted
[quote]Incoming White House chief of staff Reince Priebus says President-elect Donald Trump’s administration is “not going to rule out anything” when it comes to immigration. But Priebus appeared to suggest the creation of a Muslim registry is not in Trump’s plans.
“Where systematic terrorism is taking place, where countries are harboring or in places where countries are harboring and training terrorists,” Priebus said on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday, “we’re going to temporarily suspend immigration from that country, or region, until a better vetting system is put in place.”[/quote]
[url]https://www.yahoo.com/news/reince-priebus-were-not-going-to-have-a-registry-based-on-a-religion-204453076.html[/url]
So... Nothing different but the Kris Kobach muslim Registry is out.
Edit: Apparently it sounds was fined tuned so the European states still have immigration
NOT RACIST AT ALL!/s
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;51403251]So... Nothing different but the Kris Kobach muslim Registry is out.
Edit: Apparently it sounds was fined tuned so the European states still have immigration
NOT RACIST AT ALL!/s[/QUOTE]
isn't america a nation of European immigrants?
[QUOTE=catchall;51403296]isn't america a nation of European immigrants?[/QUOTE]
We had so many German immigrants that German was rivaling English for our primary language. Vilification of Germans during the wars put a quick end to that.
Wouldn't they already have this infomation? I thought that's what the NSA was for?
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;51403251]So... Nothing different but the Kris Kobach muslim Registry is out.
Edit: Apparently it sounds was fined tuned so the European states still have immigration
NOT RACIST AT ALL!/s[/QUOTE]
Yes - immigration from European nations would still be allowed. This is the point. They want to ban immigration from nations that provide immigrants which have a significant chance of jeopardizing national security. European nations don't really fall into that category.
yet
[QUOTE='[sluggo];51403341']Yes - immigration from European nations would still be allowed. This is the point. They want to ban immigration from nations that provide immigrants which have a significant chance of jeopardizing national security. European nations don't really fall into that category.[/QUOTE]
england potentially could. same with germany.
[QUOTE='[sluggo];51403341']Yes - immigration from European nations would still be allowed. This is the point. They want to ban immigration from nations that provide immigrants which have a significant chance of jeopardizing national security. European nations don't really fall into that category.[/QUOTE]
This is the third/fourth version of the ban, The Second version would ban immigration from nation compromised by Terrorism which would included France and a handful of other European nations.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51403308]We had so many German immigrants that German was rivaling English for our primary language. Vilification of Germans during the wars put a quick end to that.[/QUOTE]
That's a myth based on exaggeration. But yeah, pretty much every immigrant group has been blamed for the problems of the US at the time
[QUOTE='[sluggo];51403341']Yes - immigration from European nations would still be allowed. This is the point. They want to ban immigration from nations that provide immigrants which have a significant chance of jeopardizing national security. European nations don't really fall into that category.[/QUOTE]
I dunno man, remember when that norwegian dude shot over 100 kids? I don't trust those europeans.
[QUOTE=Pops;51403366]england potentially could. same with germany.[/QUOTE]
Except since there is a white majority, immigration would be allowed, hence why this ban is racist.
"we cannot rule anything out, including gas chambers, internment camps, and thermonuclear strikes."
Any sane person could easily rule those out right away but ya this is the administration we voted for, one that will leave you guessing right until the very moment they fart in everyone's face.
also now that they are forced to grapple with reality, i'd really love to know how our vetting system which takes 18-20 months of interviews from multiple agencies doesn't seem to pass muster.
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;51403375]Except since there is a white majority, immigration would be allowed, hence why this ban is racist.[/QUOTE]
if the IRA was going around the world committing acts of terrorism, they would block immigrants from ireland, you dingus. also, muslims aren't a race, you double dingus.
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;51403371]This is the third/fourth version of the ban, The Second version would ban immigration from nation compromised by Terrorism which would included France and a handful of other European nations.[/QUOTE]
I agree - under a broad criteria of nations compromised by terrorism France and some other European nations could be considered, but to be that broad would be to forbid immigration from an impractically large number of states. I think this is probably going to focus on places like Libya, Iraq, Syria, and a spattering of other middle eastern, south Asian, and African states. Ones compromised by civil war and large, easily quantifiable extremist groups.
[QUOTE=Sableye;51403379]
also now that they are forced to grapple with reality, i'd really love to know how our vetting system which takes 18-20 months of interviews from multiple agencies doesn't seem to pass muster.[/QUOTE]
Since Trump loves business outsource it to business.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51403374]I dunno man, remember when that norwegian dude shot over 100 kids? I don't trust those europeans.[/QUOTE]
There aren't a large swath of Norwegian dudes plotting acts of international terrorism and exporting their radical ideology with the intent of destabilizing western society.
[QUOTE='[sluggo];51403414']There aren't a large swath of Norwegian dudes plotting acts of international terrorism and exporting their radical ideology with the intent of destabilizing western society.[/QUOTE]
But you know, let's just pretend domestic terrorism doesn't exist.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51403422]But you know, let's just pretend domestic terrorism doesn't exist.[/QUOTE]
Nope, they're just a misunderstood loners.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51403422]But you know, let's just pretend domestic terrorism doesn't exist.[/QUOTE]
Your point is?
I don't think a ban like this will stop terrorism entirely, and neither am I pretending domestic terrorism doesn't exist.
[QUOTE='[sluggo];51403404']I agree - under a broad criteria of nations compromised by terrorism France and some other European nations could be considered, but to be that broad would be to forbid immigration from an impractically large number of states. I think this is probably going to focus on places like Libya, Iraq, Syria, and a spattering of other middle eastern, south Asian, and African states. Ones compromised by civil war and large, easily quantifiable extremist groups.[/QUOTE]
ya but these countries in africa and the middle east that are suffering from civil wars are precisely the countries we need to be accepting refugees from, otherwise those people are going to be either dying there or forcing their way into our country anyways. we can't just sit here and ignore a massive humanitarian crisis. handwaving away the problem doesn't fix the fact that people are going to be displaced from their countries and in some cases, its totally impossible for them to return
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51403308]We had so many German immigrants that German was rivaling English for our primary language. Vilification of Germans during the wars put a quick end to that.[/QUOTE]
Would make for an interesting alt reality if the USA was split between a German-speaking north and English-speaking south.
[QUOTE='[sluggo];51403414']There aren't a large swath of Norwegian dudes plotting acts of international terrorism and exporting their radical ideology with the intent of destabilizing western society.[/QUOTE]
Too bad the ones exporting their radical ideology are doing so over the internet so the ban is utterly meaningless.
[QUOTE=Sableye;51403442]ya but these countries in africa and the middle east that are suffering from civil wars are precisely the countries we need to be accepting refugees from, otherwise those people are going to be either dying there or forcing their way into our country anyways. we can't just sit here and ignore a massive humanitarian crisis. handwaving away the problem doesn't fix the fact that people are going to be displaced from their countries and in some cases, its totally impossible for them to return[/QUOTE]
Personally, i'm of the opinion we should accept refugees in a limited number, and vet them effectively. The refugee crisis is doing more than its fair share to polarize Europe, exacerbate its housing and economic crises, and bring in a wave of Islamic extremists.
The US needs to be careful to avoid this - bringing in limited numbers of well vetted refugees - who are proven unable to return to their homes. This is exactly what a temporary ban would do.
Stop bring in masses until they are properly vetted, security and housing for them in in place, so on...
The Unites states is different from Europe, it is somewhat better equipped to take in refugees - Europe a very geographically tightly nit place full of fairly homogeneous societies, which the US is not. However, in Europe the dangers of bringing in a large refugee population are made clear. Avoiding that is essential.
I don't entirely trust Trump and his administration to do this, but I agree with their basic concerns and motivations.
[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;51403475]Would make for an interesting alt reality if the USA was split between a German-speaking north and English-speaking south.[/QUOTE]
The Man in the High Castle had an interesting version of a post-war America that was split between a Japanese West coast and German East coast. There's sort of a neutral zone in middle America.
[QUOTE='[sluggo];51403516']Personally, i'm of the opinion we should accept refugees in a limited number, and vet them effectively. The refugee crisis is doing more than its fair share to polarize Europe, exacerbate its housing and economic crises, and bring in a wave of Islamic extremists.
.[/QUOTE]
this is exactly what we're doing. europe isn't exactly letting them waltz in either (merkel's weird PC binge in 2014 being the exception) these people are swarming europe because the refugee camps are unsafe and overcrowded. the only reason why they aren't flooding here is because they can't physically get here
[QUOTE=markfu;51403521]The Man in the High Castle had an interesting version of a post-war America that was split between a Japanese West coast and German East coast. There's sort of a neutral zone in middle America.[/QUOTE]
But that's a lame pop culture 'what if' scenario.
I'm talking a gradual linguistic shift from the 19th-20th centuries.
[QUOTE=Pops;51403403]if the IRA was going around the world committing acts of terrorism, they would block immigrants from ireland, you dingus. also, muslims aren't a race, you double dingus.[/QUOTE]
I'd love to see anyone justify such a ban as anything but racist or xenophobic. I mean, the IRA committed horrible acts in Northern Ireland, mainland Britain and the Republic of Ireland - but they didn't, you know, represent all Irish people, so banning Irish immigrants would be a terrible idea?
Muslims aren't a race but I wonder why it's mostly Muslims who are dark skinned that are targeted, or why Sikhs are often mistaken for Muslims...
So are you banning Croatian immigrants because a terrorist group hijacked a plane and killed a cop that one time?
[QUOTE=Pops;51403403]if the IRA was going around the world committing acts of terrorism, they would block immigrants from ireland, you dingus. also, muslims aren't a race, you double dingus.[/QUOTE]
No they wouldnt? I mean thats a hypothetical since they dont go around the world doing that but I am pretty sure if they did Irish people wouldnt be blocked.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.