15 Comments

  1. jack said:

    So, for those saying we have not yet been attacked by anyone from these countries…..are you willing to sacrifice YOUR family to prove this point ? Before 1993, nobody had attacked the US. Then they bombed the World Trade building the forst time……and nothing was done, Then they bombed the USS Cole…..nothing was done…..then the Embassy’s…nothing was done, Then 9/11……now we woke up but only for a few years and then protests started doubting we were doing the right thing. Now we have had more attacks on our soil and people are STILL questioning WHY we :detained ” people at the airport. Because we have to set a new standard.

    Because these countries cannot give us documentation on a lot of their people to prove they are not Jihadists.
    Even Obama’s own cabinet members stated that we cannot safely vet a lot of people coming from these countries. How many of these people were sent back ? NONE How many were tortured? NONE Were any abused ? NOPE Did they get to go home ? YES.

    So my question stands: Are you willing to sacrifice YOUR family and friends to use this point for an argument ? Just ask those families in San Bernadino or Orlando or Boston Metro if they would sacrifice a little time in order to get their loved ones back.

  2. Jill Haverhill said:

    Duncan, Obama’s action was for extra scrutiny, not a ban.

    • Duncan Burns said:

      “identify and suspend from program participation any country whose nationals present a high U.S. security risk.” –

      DHS shall determine and review annually whether such prohibitions shall apply to any country or area, considering whether:

      -the presence of an alien in the country or area increases the likelihood that he or she is a credible U.S. security threat,
      -a foreign terrorist organization has a significant presence in the country or area, and
      -the country or area is a safe haven for terrorists.

      Pretty clear to me.

  3. Jill Haverhill said:

    Jack, with all due respect, I’d like to note a few facts. Not opinions, but easily verifiable facts.

    1) No refugee from any of the seven countries Trump has targeted in his ban has ever perpetrated a fatal terrorist action on U.S. soil.

    2) The “death by refugee” scenario is among the least likely causes of death in the U.S. Statistics compiled between 1975 and 2015 determine a 1 in 3.64 billion chance each year of dying in a terror attack carried out by a foreign-born terrorist. The biggest threat to U.S. citizens? Fellow Americans with guns. Over 10,000 Americans are killed each year with a gun, and 560 people die yearly from accidents involving firearms.

    3) The United States of America was founded upon religious freedom. Banning people based on their religion is about as anti-American as attempting to erode faith in the legitimacy of the U.S.’s electoral processes, interfering with its free press, or praising brutal dictators. Oh, wait.

    Many who have devoted their lives to protect America and everything she stands for, like my ex-Green Beret friend, believe that Trump’s Islamophobia has made our country far less safe, as it confirms jihadist propaganda. Terror experts across the nation, on both sides of the political fence, have opined that Trump’s executive order may well result in increased radicalization of America’s potential enemies.

    • Duncan Burns said:

      “The United States of America was founded upon religious freedom.” –

      Except the religion of the people trying to get here do not believe in religious freedom. They also believe not only as a matter of religion, but as a matter of law; imprisoning/murdering gays, female genital mutilation, lack of equal rights, lack of civil rights for women, honor killing, raping, and acid attacks on women. That is about as anti-American as it can get, an no, this intolerant religion is not reflective of American Culture.

      • Jill Haverhill said:

        Every major religion has its fringe outliers. Your characterization is not an accurate depiction of most Muslims, especially those that have sought sanctuary in this great nation of ours.

        • Duncan Burns said:

          How much time have you actually lived in a Muslim country Jill? Which ones? I lived in Iraq and Turkey, I’ve lived under their customs and laws, so there’s no characterizations needed. Certainly not whatever the media wants folks to believe, no matter what ones personal political alignment. I would love to hear your insight, based on your experience and exposure of their religion and laws on how they treat gays and women in particular.

          • Jill Haverhill said:

            Iraq is a theocracy, and its government is not to be confused with the wishes and beliefs of all Iraqi citizens or Iraqi Muslims. Turkey has been moving toward a theocracy for years; its oppressive regime ought not be confused with the will of all its oppressed people.

            If you were in these countries in service to the U.S., thank you.

  4. Duncan Burns said:

    Just so we’re clear, all Trump did was take action on something that was already signed into law, by President Obama. Of note, Sen. Elizabeth Warren voted for this, as well as other Massachusetts Representatives (i.e. Tsongas). Now all of the sudden there’s outrage?

    “TITLE II–TERRORIST TRAVEL PREVENTION AND VISA WAIVER PROGRAM REFORM”

    “Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015″

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2029
    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll679.xml
    https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00339

  5. Sanity Claus said:

    Would one of you ‘patriots” please explain how anything in Trump’s executive order would have prevented the Tsarnaev brothers from carrying out the Boston Marathon attacks. They were not from any of the countries on Trump’s list. Neither was Saudi Arabia, which was home to most of the 9/11 bombers. But Trump has big-time financial interests in Saudi Arabia, so don’t expect any sanctions against them.

    • Duncan Burns said:

      I agree here, Saudi Arabia is the enemy, and it’s not just Trump and it’s not just oil. DoD contractors have a huge self-interest there, and donate in kind to politicians like our own Niki Tsongas in-kind. Throw in Wikileaks showing how Saudi Arabia and The UAE were supporting ISIS with our weaponry, the Saudi Royal Family should have been crushed.

  6. SlipperCity said:

    I also agree 100% with Jack. We, the American citizenry, have a right to be protected by our government. We have to know who we are letting into the US.

    Who is going to protect us if not the government of our country. It is about time that we decide to properly vet those who come into the US so that we know who is here AND keep track of when their VISAs expire like every other country does, and that we ferret out those who overstay their Visas, get them the heck out of here, and eliminate from entry those who come here to do us harm.

    We have already had a major issue in Boston in the form of the Tsarnaev Brothers…. are we to continue to favor those who do not belong here over a US Citizen? And to pay for their every need to boot? And to have 58 different languages instead of insisting that people learn English and assimilate if they choose to come to this country?

    If a few people are inconvenienced by the new ruling —– WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD!

  7. Jack Haverhill said:

    Tim, with all due respect, this is obviously a “local issue”.
    You make the people who have been detained at airports out to be some kind of serious victims of this shift in US public policy. Their temporary inconvenience is laughable compared to what local families have had to endure as a result of having family members murdered in 9/11 and the Marathon Bombings by radicalized Muslim refugees. How is it people in this country have already forgotten that radicalized extremist Muslim refugees committed to killing infidels for the sake of a Holy Jihad did so on the streets Boston?

    The main finding from the 9/11 Commission Report was that the USA was at war with extremist Muslims and we didn’t even know it. We just experienced 8 years under a liberal democrat president more concerned about giving rights to those committed to killing us, even when we know their motives like we did with the Tsarneav Brothers, than protecting Americans. The precious little boy Martin Richard would still be alive today if we had a president like Trump who took his job serious of protecting the security and safety of this country. I doubt the fraud Marty Meehan even remembers who Martin Richard was.

    Tim, I can’t tell you how many people I’ve talked to who have no idea of the specifics of what President Trump’s executive order specifically says. Most have no clue as they’ve been severely misinformed by liberal mainstream media. This comment format does not allow to provide a link to the exact White House dot gov site which provides the exact executive order. It is titled: Executive Order: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements.
    I think it would be a big benefit to readers of WHAV to provide an article which would include a link to the exact Executive Order.

    I personally don’t know how people could disagree with what Trump is doing after reading it.

    • Donna said:

      I agree 100% with Jack up above! I don’t want to see another 911 or Boston Marathon again. Apparently people forget to quickly!

Comments are closed.

Top
s2Member®